Takeaway from the Democratic Debate:
1)Warren remains the strongest candidate to beat Trump. She has energy, smarts, a clear message and a strong program. She is a living embodiment of what I think of as the Doug Jones principle. Jones got African-American voters (particularly African-American women) to come out and give him a win in Alabama because his life story gave them confidence that he would serve their interests. He had taken political and personal risks in prosecuting the white supremacist terrorists that had murdered young girls in Birmingham. Past actions are the best predictors of future behavior- voters are always looking in a candidate's life story for some sign that this person will fulfill some of the promises that all candidates make to "stand for voters like you." Workers in the industrial Midwest will look at Warren's record fighting against corporate and financial interests and believe that she is on their side. That is precisely the constituency that will make up the deficit that lost Hillary the election in 2016. Forget about Warren's gender- workers aren't that stupid. At least, the ones who are that stupid are going to vote for Trump whomever the Dems nominate, so it makes sense to nominate someone that will appeal to the workers that are reachable.
2)The strongest ticket is a Warren-Harris or Warren-Klobuchar ticket. Putting two women on the ticket will generate "controversy" that will help the Dems draw some media focus away from the constant circus surrounding Trump. But there are lots of strong combinations in the current field. Klobuchar-Harris, Klobuchar-Buttigieg, Klobuchar-Booker, Booker-Buttigieg, yada yada yada.
3)Any Democrat that runs a strong campaign can beat Trump. That said, the two most vulnerable are Sanders and Biden. Sanders has too much baggage from his past- his public image is much too easy to reshape. Maybe I am overestimating the gullibility of the electorate, but if the swift boating of John Kerry is any gauge, the footage of Sanders hugging Castro, trash-talking Israel, etc. is going to sink him if he ever gets the nomination.
4)Biden is a potential train wreck. I love Joe, I was charmed when he had the "no, you're not Putin" moment with Sanders last night, I liked that he called BS on Gabbard's "regime change war." But in his best days he was a semi-articulate gaffe machine, and his best days are long past. He will allow Trump to run EXACTLY the kind of campaign the Troll-in-Chief likes- full of puerile insults and trash talk about verbal flubs. It will be "I voted for the money before I voted against it" X10. He could still pull it off, but only if a)He recovers something that looks a little better than his old "A game"; b)He has a young, dynamic, female running mate (calling VP Klobuchar, Abrams, or Harris).
5)Tulsi Gabbard is a GOP/Russian mole, or might as well be. Almost every word out of her mouth helped Troll last night. The "regime change war" that she kept repeating was the worst but not the only example. "Regime change war"? Iraq yes, Syria- NO! We did not start the Syrian civil war- it began as an authentic grass-roots movement against the Assad regime, which militarized only AFTER Assad's government responded with deadly force to the protests of its own citizens. Calling it a "regime change war" (i.e. implying that the Syrian people rose up against Assad only because we the USA put them up to it) is to parrot Assad regime/Russian propaganda. Gabbard obviously went into that debate determined to throw the apple of discord among her fellow Democrats and bring the whole show down. Whether she was doing it out of her own conviction or at someone else's behest (hello Donald? Vlad? Mr. Koch?) is anybody's guess.
1)Warren remains the strongest candidate to beat Trump. She has energy, smarts, a clear message and a strong program. She is a living embodiment of what I think of as the Doug Jones principle. Jones got African-American voters (particularly African-American women) to come out and give him a win in Alabama because his life story gave them confidence that he would serve their interests. He had taken political and personal risks in prosecuting the white supremacist terrorists that had murdered young girls in Birmingham. Past actions are the best predictors of future behavior- voters are always looking in a candidate's life story for some sign that this person will fulfill some of the promises that all candidates make to "stand for voters like you." Workers in the industrial Midwest will look at Warren's record fighting against corporate and financial interests and believe that she is on their side. That is precisely the constituency that will make up the deficit that lost Hillary the election in 2016. Forget about Warren's gender- workers aren't that stupid. At least, the ones who are that stupid are going to vote for Trump whomever the Dems nominate, so it makes sense to nominate someone that will appeal to the workers that are reachable.
2)The strongest ticket is a Warren-Harris or Warren-Klobuchar ticket. Putting two women on the ticket will generate "controversy" that will help the Dems draw some media focus away from the constant circus surrounding Trump. But there are lots of strong combinations in the current field. Klobuchar-Harris, Klobuchar-Buttigieg, Klobuchar-Booker, Booker-Buttigieg, yada yada yada.
3)Any Democrat that runs a strong campaign can beat Trump. That said, the two most vulnerable are Sanders and Biden. Sanders has too much baggage from his past- his public image is much too easy to reshape. Maybe I am overestimating the gullibility of the electorate, but if the swift boating of John Kerry is any gauge, the footage of Sanders hugging Castro, trash-talking Israel, etc. is going to sink him if he ever gets the nomination.
4)Biden is a potential train wreck. I love Joe, I was charmed when he had the "no, you're not Putin" moment with Sanders last night, I liked that he called BS on Gabbard's "regime change war." But in his best days he was a semi-articulate gaffe machine, and his best days are long past. He will allow Trump to run EXACTLY the kind of campaign the Troll-in-Chief likes- full of puerile insults and trash talk about verbal flubs. It will be "I voted for the money before I voted against it" X10. He could still pull it off, but only if a)He recovers something that looks a little better than his old "A game"; b)He has a young, dynamic, female running mate (calling VP Klobuchar, Abrams, or Harris).
5)Tulsi Gabbard is a GOP/Russian mole, or might as well be. Almost every word out of her mouth helped Troll last night. The "regime change war" that she kept repeating was the worst but not the only example. "Regime change war"? Iraq yes, Syria- NO! We did not start the Syrian civil war- it began as an authentic grass-roots movement against the Assad regime, which militarized only AFTER Assad's government responded with deadly force to the protests of its own citizens. Calling it a "regime change war" (i.e. implying that the Syrian people rose up against Assad only because we the USA put them up to it) is to parrot Assad regime/Russian propaganda. Gabbard obviously went into that debate determined to throw the apple of discord among her fellow Democrats and bring the whole show down. Whether she was doing it out of her own conviction or at someone else's behest (hello Donald? Vlad? Mr. Koch?) is anybody's guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment