December 30, 2019

If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?

I'm trying to read "The Presidential Nominating Process Is Absurd/We have an unnecessarily weak presidential field, especially the incumbent" by David Leonhardt (in the NYT). To me, the headline looks fluffed up with various distractions, and a more honest statement would be "We have a puzzlingly weak field of Democratic candidates" or "We have an alarmingly weak field of Democratic candidates."

If Trump is the weakest candidate of all, the Democrats wouldn't look so weak. They'd be just fine. That "especially the incumbent" feels incoherent, and it seems to be offered as a sop to depressed and scared NYT readers. And then, let's talk about how there's something bad about the "process." It's absurd!

But I will read this thing for you. The focus is the process:
[The nominating process] has come to resemble a reality television show, in which a pseudo-scientific process (polls plus donor numbers) winnows the field... Until recently, the United States... gave party leaders a larger role in selecting nominees. Today’s leaders have abdicated this job... When voters are given the dominant role in choosing a nominee — as with primaries here — only an unrepresentative subset tends to participate...

A better approach would balance snapshots of popular opinion with rules more likely to produce strong, qualified nominees... It makes more sense for only the true polling leaders to be guaranteed debate slots. Beyond them, the party could set aside at least one spot for a governor and perhaps one for a senator from a large state or swing state.

A second set of changes would involve the primaries themselves. More states should adopt ranked-choice voting.... It’s also past time to end the special treatment that Iowa and New Hampshire receive, by always voting first. They are two overwhelmingly white, disproportionately baby boomer states..... The primary calendar should... rotate every four years, with the first states always including a mix of states: big and small, young and old, urban and rural, coastal and heartland....
These might be good ideas, but like the current process, if they were tried, there would be unintended consequences, and there'd be no going back to the old process, which will have been demonized. They can't go back to the process that got demonized as "elitist," and they sure won't be able to go back to a process that will have been demonized as "overwhelmingly white."

But, go ahead — rotate those primary states. Jump off that precipice with no way to climb back. I think we have the "absurd" process for a reason. The more absurd, the more reason. But maybe the reason is nefarious. Go ahead — expose the nefarious reason.

139 comments:

Temujin said...

Party Leaders gave the Dems Hillary Clinton last time and told her to ignore Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania because their internal polls showed that they had it in the bag. So she spent time gathering (some would say garnering- ugh) money and votes in uncontested states such as New York, California, and Connecticut.

She was the Party directive even though the people in their party would have put Bernie in place.

Next idea

Shouting Thomas said...

Isn't this argument completely undermined by the reality that the DNC rigged the primaries in 2016 to guarantee Hillary won?

The DNC even argued, successfully, in court that it had no obligation to sponsor honest primaries, that it is a corporation bound only by its internal policies.

Michael K said...

The small unrepresentative minority of voters elected AOC. Go for it !

Bob Boyd said...

The nefarious reason is The Party isn't gaining power. The purpose of the process is to empower the Party. The Party needs to control the process.
Same with the impeachment.

DavidD said...

“We have an unnecessarily weak presidential field, especially the incumbent.”

Wait. So the NYT wants a strong incumbent opposition party candidate? Really.

DavidD said...

“...only an unrepresentative subset tends to participate...”

But aren’t party leaders even more unrepresentative?

What a word salad.

Paco Wové said...

"But aren’t party leaders even more unrepresentative?"

I'd guess they are very representative of David Leonhardt.

Tank said...

The problem with the "process" is that all of the Democrats are terrible and would be terrible presidents harming the USA in a plethora of ways.

Any idiot who writes that Donald Trump is not a strong candidate is an idiot (see what I did there?). You might not like his policies or his personality or both, but to day he is not a strong candidate is to day you living in a world that does not exist.

Tank said...

"to say" not to day

LOL, I'm an idiot.

Tank said...

Can't even blame autocorrect.

gilbar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gilbar said...

BECAUSE, HE'S NOT WEAK!!

Phil Beck said...

Short version: Let me and people I like pick your candidates.

mockturtle said...

Maybe it's because the Democratic Party is made up of dummköpfen.

MartyH said...

Off the cuff idea: a smart primary process would focus on swing states having a disproportionate weight since they decide the Presidency. CA and NY don’t matter. FL and OH do.

traditionalguy said...

The Dems are stuck in the fantasy land they want us to believe in with no way out. And weak candidate Trump decides to run the first political race of his life at age 70 and wins by promising to do what middle class American voters have always wanted done. And Trump's trick is spreading all over the world.

Browndog said...

Recall the slew of Republican candidates in 2016 were all, for the most part, viable Presidential material.

At least until Trump got a hold of them.

Bay Area Guy said...

The problem with the Democrats isn't the process. The problem with the Democrats is that they are delusional Leftwing socialists who dislike capitalism, dislike Christianity, dislike the Constitution, and oppose the traditions and customs and practices of this great, but imperfect country.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The big change this cycle was moving the California primary from June 7 in 2016 to March 3 in 2020. Ask Kamala Harris if that worked. Personally, I would like to see national primary on a single day, but we would need to eliminate the electoral college for that to be possible, as the Constituion puts the picking of electors in the hands of the state legislatures.

pacwest said...

The "weak" incumbent has:
Record fundraising numbers.
Record approval among minorities.
Record unemployment and economy.
An excellent chance of having a record voter turnout in his party.
Oh yeah, and record idiocy for opposition.
(And a few of the voter rolls are being cleaned up!)

The New Math they are teaching these days doesn't seem to have worked out for some jounalists. I think they forget to carry the 2.

Browndog said...

I'm thinking they think the biggest flaw in the process is AOC not being eligible to be part of it.

Hagar said...

It is a puzzlement how come the majority party cannot come up with a presidential candidate that does not look doubtful even for election to the local school board.
Maybe the grandees of the party should think about that.

John henry said...

12 republican candidates participated in the 2016 Iowa caucus.

Not very different from the number of dems in 2020.

Why do people say it is too crowded.

The more the merrier I say.

And why is Bernie running as a Democrat anyway? He claims to be an "independent"

If elected, will he president as an independent or ss a Democrat? Maybe a good question for you to ask him, David begley.

John Henry

Iman said...

You lost me at the NYT... 2019 was the year the inbreds at the NYT dedicated themselves to humiliating America through their1619 Project... although it’s arguable that it’s been what they’re all about for many years.

rehajm said...

I’ve been done with the TV game show debates for a few cycles. Just let them tweet their barbs to each other...

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

Phil Beck: Short version: Let me and people I like pick your candidates.

I think Leonhardt's plaint is an example of the more general case of people like him not having come to terms with the fact that they've lost control of the future that they were sure was going to be all theirs. In such a condition, people will come up with all kinds of convoluted explanations for why things are going the "wrong" way - and how to fix them so they will go right way - rather than accept that their own super-genius plans and policies and efforts to control the future are the cause of the mess they're in now.

mockturtle said...

Browndog observes: Recall the slew of Republican candidates in 2016 were all, for the most part, viable Presidential material.

Indeed. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul in particular, Ben Carson maybe. Jeb not so much. Carly Fiorina would have certainly been a better candidate than Hillary.

gilbar said...

a Sensible Suggestion to Eliminate "Weak" Candidates

Thunderdome!
Two men (people) enter; one man leaves

this would ensure STRONG candidates; AND! it would be ENTERTAINING (And reduce the number of politicians)

gilbar said...

We have embraced ALL of the other 'vices' of imperial rome...
Isn't It TIME for televised Murder?

Hagar said...

So far 2020 looks like Donald J. Trump against the MSM and the Deep State with neither party having much to do with anything.

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

gilbar: this would ensure STRONG candidates; AND! it would be ENTERTAINING (And reduce the number of politicians)

As well as being less intellectually vacuous and uninformative than the current clown-show debate form.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Gotta face some facts. The democrats haven't shown up for work in what, eleven years. Their leadership has proposed nothing but give aways for some time. They've become quite the F*ckups. Hillary care Obama care chicks with dicks, menstruating men, co-ed bathrooms, global warming, metoo, financed by Pedos and Nazi collaborators, comfort ponies and open borders to name a few of their gems! Is it really any wonder why so many of their kids are tapping out?

wild chicken said...

Every writer has to do his little I-hate-Trump dance before getting to the actual point of the piece.

Just goes without saying. You wouldn't want your readers to get the wrong idea!

AllenS said...

I've said this before, and it bears repeating, if you are overwhelmingly white, and you are still voting for Democrats, you are a damned fool.

BUMBLE BEE said...

The DNC has become more like the Firesign Theatre's greatest hits. That they are being bested by that "moron" Trump is so telling. They add up to less than zero.

stevew said...

Democrats are authoritarians. If the process and rules don't produce the desired result then they want to change them to get what they want. Hillary wins the national popular vote but loses the vote that matters, the Electoral, so we need to eliminate the Electoral College. Or they recommend rank voting. Bernie is more popular than Hillary so they rig the primaries for her with Superdelegates aka: party operatives.

Most insightful though, about the featured article, is that the Democrats ignoring the fact that Trump is a very successful and strong president and candidate for reelection. Also, it is obviously true that there is no person that can challenge Trump, whether running now or not.

AllenS said...

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would have received any more votes even if she would have campaigned in Wisconsin.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Took a wrong turn at the Kennedy juncture. Should have paid more attention to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Their Lion of the Senate story? Pathetic.

rcocean said...

"A better approach would balance snapshots of popular opinion with rules more likely to produce strong, qualified nominees."

Lefties like Leonhart are always good at being dishonest. This D nominating process had Booker, Gillbrand, Bernie, Klobblob, Harris, Warren - 6 US Senators, Biden - former VP and 35 years in the Senate, and Bloomberg -12 year Mayor of NYC. Along with a 3 Governors and 4 Congressmen. The only "Unqualified" candidate with any real pull is Buttigig.

Further, the complaint that Iowa and NH are 'Too White' is balanced by the fact that SC is "too black". In fact the voters in the D South along with California are "Too minority" to be representative.

Judging by political office, this is the most "Qualified" field in ages. Carter in '76 was an ex-1 term Governor of GA. 1988 gave us The Duke, 92 Clinton, and 2008 Obama, one of the least qualified nominees ever. 2 years a Senator, and before that a Illinois state legislator.

Unknown said...

"But I will read this thing for you."

I'm not sure he actually deserves to be referred to as "this thing", but if you're reading the bilge David Leonhardt spews as a favor to me, you can stop now.

Browndog said...

Blogger AllenS said...

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would have received any more votes even if she would have campaigned in Wisconsin.


Agreed.

Tired of hearing if she had just made one quick campaign stop, Probably in Milwaukee or Madison, she would have won the State.

mockturtle said...

AllenS: I've said this before, and it bears repeating, if you are overwhelmingly black, and you are still voting for Democrats, you are a damned fool. works just as well.

rcocean said...

The D presidential candidates have been terrible for some time. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Duke, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary. 6 Senators, 3 Governors.

AllenS said...

I agree most totally with you, mockturtle.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The modern democrat party isn't merely a Potemkin village, it's a corrupt Potemkin village.

rcocean said...

Trump's victory was a miracle. Whether the USA will continue to decline -or stay with Trump - is a tossup at this point. But never underestimate the stupidity of the American Public.

rcocean said...

Asians should be voting Republican but 60-65% of them don't.

AllenS said...

OK, you people convinced me, so, I shall opine: if you are still voting for Democrats, you are a damned fool.

William said...

Joe Biden first ran for President in '88 when he was in his prime. Now he's in his late seventies. Why is he so much more formidable now than then? His physical powers have not increased and he has acquired a further record of bad decisions. It's a puzzlement.....There were a couple of Democratic candidates that I was comfortable with: Delaney and Hickenlooper, but they didn't even register in the polls. The kind of people that used to run for President as a matter of course are now the outsiders, the odd ball dark horses....Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg take the trouble to be polite, well groomed and appear good natured. Warren, Sanders, and Biden don't even make the effort. Biden, though, it must be said keeps his nasal hairs better trimmed than Sanders and his gestures are not as klutzy as those of Warren so that's a plus.

Jeff Brokaw said...

“But I will read this thing for you.”

Thanks — but I’m trying to cut down.

Tank said...

rcocean said...
Trump's victory was a miracle. Whether the USA will continue to decline -or stay with Trump - is a tossup at this point. But never underestimate the stupidity of the American Public.


Hey, don’t be ruining my buzz with your reality.

Post Trump it’s back to the decline, might be quick or slow.

Leland said...

As usual for socialist progressives, if the process doesn't provide the outcome desired then it is the mistake of the process. The expectations are never wrong.

Dave Begley said...

Since I have personally reported in-depth on the Iowa process, I can tell you I think it is absolutely great. Candidates have to meet and talk to actual voters and win their support. Pure democracy.

Hillary NEVER took questions from voters. The Queen. Biden rarely does. Trump, on the other hand, really connected with people. Carly probably met every single one of her voters. Trump came in second to Cruz in Iowa, but it was a beginning. I never thought a billionaire TV star from NYC could relate to Iowa voters, but I was dead wrong.

I note that Delany has about 30 events already scheduled in Iowa in January. He's meeting people. Biden has nothing on the docket right now.

MikeR said...

@Temujin "Party Leaders gave the Dems Hillary Clinton last time and told her to ignore Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania because their internal polls showed that they had it in the bag." As I've said before, this is a mistake. Clinton avoided Wisconsin etc. because she was a terrible campaigner and was worse in these places. She campaigned as little as possible because it didn't help, and hoped to run out the clock.

Mark said...

If the Dems really are against the Electoral College, they should abolish state-by-state primaries.

And, no it would not require abolishing the EC first. The EC has nothing to do with party nominations.

gerry said...

“...only an unrepresentative subset tends to participate...”

What a word salad.

*************************************

An old joke from the days of the USSR explains socialist words salads well:

"My wife has been going to the Party’s cooking school for three years," says one Soviet man to another.

"She must really cook well by now," says the second man.

"No, so far they've only got as far as the bit about the Twentieth CPSU Congress."

NCMoss said...

If AOC gives the rebuttal to Trump's 2020 State of the Union address does that mean the democratic party has chosen the Bernie/Warren side over Biden?

gerry said...

The expectations are never wrong.

Leon Trotsky said it best: "The Party is never wrong."

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

William said...
Joe Biden first ran for President in '88 when he was in his prime. Now he's in his late seventies. Why is he so much more formidable now than then."

And in '88 Biden lost to Mike "The Tank" Dukakis, who in turn was thrashed by Bush I.

It's really quite an accomplishment to field candidates that are even more mediocre than Dukakis, but the Dems have managed it.

The Monty Python skit about the race for Upper Class Twit of the Year comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1FfrnOXGHg

TJM said...

Is it now a requirement to be deaf, dumb and blind to write for the New York Times?

Gunner said...

Leonhardt does not want to get exiled from the Dem hivemind for not whining about Trump enough.

Drago said...

Mark: "If the Dems really are against the Electoral College, they should abolish state-by-state primaries.

And, no it would not require abolishing the EC first. The EC has nothing to do with party nominations."

Quite so.

Once again no one knows what the hell it is Left Bank is talking about.

Nonapod said...

It’s also past time to end the special treatment that Iowa and New Hampshire receive, by always voting first. They are two overwhelmingly white, disproportionately baby boomer states.

In my opinion, the reason they're in the predicament they're in is because they not paying enough attention to the desires of white baby boomers. The reason the current crop of candidates is mostly extremist sorts is because they seem to be letting the media and Twitter decide who gets all the attention over candidates who might actually have a chance (theoretically anyways). Characters like Warren and Sanders will never appeal to moderates, but all the attention they recieve pushes the rest of the candidates into proposing more and more absurd ideas.

As a whole, the Democrats need to stop listening to the media. They need to stop treating the NYT like it's some sort of irrefutable gospel. They need to ignore social media. And they need to start listening to regular people who actually pay taxes and... you know, vote.

Fortunately, I don't believe they'll do any of that before the next election.

Otto said...

So tell us again Ann why you still read the NYT and the other rags you reference continually at this blog.
Tell us it is because you are such an astute reader and your fisking is so influential.After all we deplorables need someone as intelligent as you to show us how biased and full of fake news these rags are. But yet you still cling to your 60s liberalism. Typical limousine liberal "good for thee but not for me"

Howard said...

Trump maybe weak but the Dims are weaker. They need to focus on manufacturing the vote in the swinger states.

daskol said...

Splitting hairs about the worst political class in our history. Most of the work is in replacing as many of them as possible. If the Dem process is chewing up pretenders rapidly that sounds pretty good. Break the party to rebuild it.

Howard said...

The EC is practically impossible to void, however, it can be tweaked via State by State rule changes.

Phil said...

I took a journalism course as an undergrad. (It was unbelievably easy). Most of the students in that class were journo majors, and I've never in my life seen such a concentration of ignorance combined with arrogance. The prof tried to shake them loose from their lockstep mindless liberalism, to examine their own prejudices, but it didn't work a bit. And this was 35 years ago at a conservative university.

I assume Leonhardt went to a 'better' school but he sounds just like those honking geese from that class, incapable of inspecting his assumptions.

BADuBois said...

It's funny how when The System™ produced a Clinton or Obama, it was perfectly fine.

Until Orange Man Bad arrived on the scene.

Now it's...

Abolish the Electoral College!

Change the make-up of the Senate!

More Supreme Court justices!

We should be a parliamentary system!

Ranked voting is more fair!

Yeah, as others have said, whining doesn't make for great box office.

Sebastian said...

"a more honest statement would be"

. . . anything not written in the NYT.

"It's absurd!"

Also, it's sad! It's terrible! They shouldn't write that! They should take their responsibility seriously!

IOW, they shouldn't be the NYT and they shouldn't be progs.

Francisco D said...

Trump maybe weak but the Dims are weaker. They need to focus on manufacturing the vote in the swinger states.

Growing up in Chicago, I was well aware that the democrats are well practiced at manufacturing votes.

Also note that the democrat field is weak because Blomberg is the only candidate who has ever managed anything significant.

Howard said...

Bloomberg's fay voice and tiny stature are deal breakers

Bob Smith said...

OK Boomers.

cubanbob said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
The big change this cycle was moving the California primary from June 7 in 2016 to March 3 in 2020. Ask Kamala Harris if that worked. Personally, I would like to see national primary on a single day, but we would need to eliminate the electoral college for that to be possible, as the Constituion puts the picking of electors in the hands of the state legislatures."

As noted above thread the EC has nothing to do with party elections. That said, it would be nice if the Democrats held one national primary election on June 7th. That way they would have to campaign in every state and out crazy each other.

Kevin said...

They can't go back to the process that got demonized as "elitist," and they sure won't be able to go back to a process that will have been demonized as "overwhelmingly white."

This is what ultimately happens when Progressives are given full control.

They must throw out the status quo, and the unintended consequences will simply be papered over with charges of past racism, no matter how absurd.

Kevin said...

What if it's only an "overwhelmingly white" process which produces the strongest general election candidate?

Because, you know, the country is overwhelmingly white.

Michael K said...

Most of the students in that class were journo majors, and I've never in my life seen such a concentration of ignorance combined with arrogance.

They are pretty well matched by criminology majors, except of course cops getting a BS.

It used to be different but the left has gotten interested in "prison reform" and lots are in criminology.

hombre said...

NYT! NYT! NYT! Goebbels! Goebbels! Goebbels!

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the [leftmedia] can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the [leftmedia] to use all of its powers to repress [the truth], for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the [left].”

Kevin said...

It's really a problem for the Dems when the black voters all seem to prefer the old, white guy.

They might get into the voting booth in November and accidentally vote for the wrong one!

hombre said...

Michael K: ‘It used to be different but the left has gotten interested in "prison reform" and lots are in criminology.’

Yes. Democrats are interested in getting new voters in at the borders and out at the prisons.

Unknown said...

We have embraced ALL of the other 'vices' of imperial rome...
Isn't It TIME for televised Murder?


Imperial Rome had televised murder?

Unknown said...

Well, maybe they did/do..

Shouting Thomas said...

They need to focus on manufacturing the vote in the swinger states.

Yes, the Dems are manufacturing votes via illegal immigration.

The wife swapping vote is probably 75% Democratic.

Sometimes, you’re kinda entertaining in your doofus ineptitude, Howard.

tcrosse said...

That said, it would be nice if the Democrats held one national primary election on June 7th. That way they would have to campaign in every state and out crazy each other.

No, they wouldn't. They could confine themselves to NY and CA and ignore flyover country.

Unknown said...

Are we to believe that letting states like New Hampshire and Iowa go first only sometimes would solve the "problem"? That the critics would say it's no longer a problem if it's only a problem during some years? No, it's just a half-step to marginalizing such states permanently.

Bay Area Guy said...

If the Democrat field continues to remain weak and uninteresting, I suggest Senator Harris re-enter the race, bypass the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary and simply offer blow-jobs to the Super Delegates.

That will spice things up a bit.

narciso said...

iowa skews the selection to the right, new Hampshire is more an establishment move, and south Carolina somewhere in the middle, they've tried to move Nevada, but that's probably less representative, and moving florida has proved problematic,

tcrosse said...

It's possible that the eventual nominee will be somebody who is not (openly) running today. One trembles to think....

gadfly said...

It is called Presidential Power, Ann. Upfront information on what is really going on in the White House is being blocked from the public, while opponents who fart out of turn are criticized.

For example, the conservative Daily Caller, once run by Tucker Carlson - when he was not a panting Trumpist - was provided information that the IRS placed a tax lien on Hunter Biden for underpaid 2015 taxes. Biden was serving on Burisma and BHR Partners boards in that year - which may or may not have anything to do with the tax lien.

But all the supposed tax cheating going on in the Trump businesses is under-reported - other than the unproven denial on the part of Donald.

Rusty said...

Howard said,"They need to focus on manufacturing the vote in the swinger states."
Oh, I kinda know they're past pros at manufacturing votes. This time I don't think they're going to be able to manufacture enough votes fast enough.

David Blaska said...

I was attracted to Leonhardt's column too, before I saw yours. What do our liberal, progressive, and socialist acquaintances do when they lose? They cry “No Fair!” and vow to Change The System, of course!

Like the Trump Resistance everywhere, the New York Times insists the System Ain't Workin'. Russian collusion proved to be a hoax. Impeachment was a big fizzle. The economy is gang busters. Troops are coming home. Meanwhile, the Democrat(ic) presidential candidates are a carnival side show. All of them lose in a theoretical head-to-head with Donald Trump, according to the 12-16-19 USA Today poll.

http://davidblaska.com/2019/12/30/trump-is-president-democrats-are-losing-the-system-is-broke

Drago said...

The Poor Man's LLR-lefty Chuck gadfly: "But all the supposed tax cheating going on in the Trump businesses is under-reported....."

LOLOLOL

Just let that sentence marinate for a bit......

"But all the supposed tax cheating going on in the Trump businesses is under-reported......"

An actual IRS tax lien against Hunter Biden while he was serving on board of the most corrupt organization in Ukraine during the obama admin is somehow less a problem than the make-believe non-existent tax cheating by the Trump organization that is pushed without any evidence whatsoever!!

gadfly, you are becoming a deep deep embarrassment to your blog mentor and leader LLR-lefty Chuck.

Stop trying to contribute to Team Left. You are just hurting the team.....

TJM said...

gadly,

here is something for you to ponder. The left is blaming President for the Democrats knifing of Jews in New York, even though Trump has Jewish grandchildren and just signed an executive order warning Institutions of Higher Moroncy about their anti-semitism:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-rush-to-blame-trump-for-anti-semitic-violence

Michael McNeil said...

Tank said...
"to say" not to day
LOL, I'm an idiot.
Can't even blame autocorrect.


To paraphrase Friedrich Schiller: “Against typos the gods themselves contend in vain.”

DavidD said...

AllenS said...
"I've said this before, and it bears repeating, if you are overwhelmingly white, and you are still voting for Democrats, you are a damned fool."

Well, I'd say that if you're overwhelmingly not-white, and you are still voting for Democrats, you are a damned fool, too, but that's just me.

Drago said...

tcrosse: "It's possible that the eventual nominee will be somebody who is not (openly) running today. One trembles to think...."

Michelle.

There is no one else that can even begin to recreate a potential obama coalition for 2020.

Of course, it is my opinion that that opinion, is mistaken given the record Trump has built and the relationship Trump has built with working class voters and minorities and the military across the battleground states at the very same time the dems have gone off the Commie Cliff.

Rusty said...

Gadfy said, "But all the supposed tax cheating going on in the Trump businesses is under-reported "
You can, of course, prove this? No? I didn't think so. You remind me of a liberal friend at work. He is absolutely convinced that Trump is guilty of money laundering. He uses as his example the Trump loan from Duetche(?) Bank to fund one of his ventures. When I point out that it isn't illegal to get loans from foreign bank, especially if you are doing business overseas. In fact it is often a condition of the deal.

Drago said...

cubanbob: "As noted above thread the EC has nothing to do with party elections. That said, it would be nice if the Democrats held one national primary election on June 7th. That way they would have to campaign in every state and out crazy each other."

Which, ironically, was one reason our Founders created the EC!

But don't tell Left Bank that. I don't think he could withstand that irony.

Gk1 said...

The article is just wishcasting for other gullible liberals looking for things that align with their fervent belief system of Orangemanbad. The opening paragraph undermines the whole premise of the piece. If Trump is so horrible and beatable why do all of the democratic candidates look so hopeless?

tcrosse said...

The Dems need a sacrificial lamb, and who better than Biden or Bernie. Neither of these would have their future ruined by a loss to Trump because neither of them has a future.

Michael K said...

tcrosse said...
The Dems need a sacrificial lamb, and who better than Biden or Bernie. Neither of these would have their future ruined by a loss to Trump because neither of them has a future.


Bob Dole II

Howard said...

Blogger tcrosse said...The Dems need a sacrificial lamb, and who better than Biden or Bernie. Neither of these would have their future ruined by a loss to Trump because neither of them has a future.

Reasonable realpolitik hypothesis.

Rosalyn C. said...

What caught my eye: "More states should adopt ranked-choice voting." That's a model many on the left are pushing to promote a more broad consensus candidate. I am not convinced it would produce a better leader for the demanding job of president, or more broad support for that person. If you are not familiar with the process see: Fair Vote I suspect ultimately the idea is to eliminate the two party system.

I don't oppose changing the primary calendar but I think the choice should be based the states with the highest percentage of high school or higher graduates, not on big or small, coastal, etc. see: Educational attainment That leaves out California, ranked last and Texas, ranked second to last.

mockturtle said...

Rosalyn C, I could not agree less. Credentialed idiots are part of the problem. We need voters with common sense.

Rosalyn C. said...

I'm not sure what credentialed idiots means? High school graduates?

narciso said...

holders of diplomas like O'Rourke (Columbia) yglesias (Harvard) milbank (yale). who don't have a clue,

narciso said...

see Sandra fluke (Georgetown law) klein, (ucla) ocasio cortez (boston u)

h said...

I don't want this to sound snide, but who are strong Dems who are sitting on the sidelines? Governors of big states (CA, NY, IL)? Governors of swing states (WI, PA, MI)? Senators from swing states (Brown of Ohio, Baldwin of Wisconsin, Casey of PA, either of VA Sens)?

TJM said...

I am surprised Gadfly has not responded to my post. Is he checking in with the New York Times or DNC so he knows what to think?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Rosalyn C.,

Bill DeBlasio graduated from Columbia.

There's a "Credentialed idiot" for you.

There are many other examples. Narciso has listed some of them.

narciso said...

I could dwell on f chuck todd, but he didn't even graduate from American, like brian Williams from Gwu, Newsom rich punk I think was from Stanford,

Rosalyn C. said...

I'm not defending credentialed idiots, that was someone else's claim. I was suggesting that the opening primaries be held in states with a population that has the greatest number of high school graduates.

Rosalyn C. said...

It's like I have to argue with peoples' misinterpretation of something I said, the opposite of what I said actually. Do people intentionally miss the point or just jump to conclusions, have extraneous arguments, and never get back to the point.

narciso said...

the problem is deeper, concerning the content of education, which is not feelings not knowledge based, this is how candidates who could never had a hearing, because their policy proposals are insane, now this is the democratic primary, which wants to ban guns, cars cows, electricity, isn't too keen on forms of worship except possibly the shahada, etc etc

PJ said...

Like our hostess, the good citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire regularly put up with a lot of bullshit so the rest of us won't have to, and for that I am in their debt. And they make a significant contribution to the selection process by being small and early, forcing candidates to engage in retail politics for an extended period of time. Having said that, the frequency with which I encounter corn on a daily basis makes me suspect that the Iowa-always-first system has its costs.

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

Rosalyn C: It's like I have to argue with peoples' misinterpretation of something I said, the opposite of what I said actually.

It's not like that. It is that.

Do people intentionally miss the point or just jump to conclusions, have extraneous arguments, and never get back to the point.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

It's just like meatspace "conversations". Sometimes we haven't been as clear as we think we've been, but as (or more) often, it's a matter of people wanting to talk about what they want to talk about, not the point you're actually making. Your point is just a convenient launch pad.

mockturtle said...

Rosalyn C, if I misunderstood your post then I apologize, though I'm not sure what it is you were actually trying to say.

Rosalyn C. said...

To be more clear, part of my reason for suggesting states with high percentages of high school graduates as primary states is to encourage people to take a greater interest in our basic education system. After all, our citizens are the bedrock of our democracy.

narciso said...

texas would be an interesting choice for a primary, in part because of demographics, but it would be very expensive,

mockturtle said...

Rosalyn, if I believed for a moment that our current high schools and universities were actually educating, rather than indoctrinating, our youth, I would be enthusiastic.

narciso said...

the proper way to have done this, was to look at who did they lose significantly, blue collar white men, but they constructed a platform that is antithetical to their interests, it's good they are that tunnel visioned, they thought harris or booker or fake latino O'Rourke would pull them through,

Narayanan said...

How sure are you that partyleaders reference by author are D's and not R's

Narayanan said...

Left Bank of the Charles said
_____&&&&+++++
I don't see how anything you said you wanted impinge on EC or Constitution

Please explain your steps to such conclusion.

SGT Ted said...

The article is more lefty Wish Casting in regards to portraying Trump as a weak candidate.

The Democrats candidate field is weak due to their being shielded by the press for so long that they don't know how to argue their positions rationally. They always get away with weak platitudes and assertions that are often contradicted by reality.

That,along with Progressives being ideological bigots and their policies are shit and alot of voters know it.

Francisco D said...

To be more clear, part of my reason for suggesting states with high percentages of high school graduates as primary states is to encourage people to take a greater interest in our basic education system

Iowa has the highest graduation rate in the US.

Rather than graduation rate, I would look at literacy rate if I wanted to evaluate a state's educational system. It is horrible here in AZ according to my wife (a HS teacher). Kids and their parents don't seem to care about education and have little of the Midwestern work ethic I grew up with.

Rosalyn C. said...

One of the reasons Trump is such a strong candidate is that he talks about issues in a way that ordinary people can comprehend and evaluate based on their common sense. Democrats are weak because their positions are based on ideological preferences and aspirations and no one can evaluate the efficacy of their solutions. We have to decide on the candidates based on subjective reactions to their personalities. For example, do Democrats want unlimited open borders, or not? Their message is not clear. There should be debates about about fixing our immigration system but what is clear is that if you are opposed to open borders Trump is offering solutions, build that wall.

Mockturtle, check out: http://civicseducationinitiative.org/get-involved/

Drago said...

SGT Ted: "The Democrats candidate field is weak due to their being shielded by the press for so long that they don't know how to argue their positions rationally. They always get away with weak platitudes and assertions that are often contradicted by reality."

This has been demonstrated most conclusively by several recent events:

LLR-lefty Chuck-approved Warren collapsing under the most gentle prodding (can't really call it questioning) from her fanboys Mathews and Colbert and others who recognized that her Magical Mystery Tour Medicare For All Plan is such a stupid impossibility that even LLR-lefty Chuck couldn't pull her rhetorical bacon out of the fire. Her collapse proceeded apace from that point.

Next, LLR-lefty Chuck-approved Slow Joe Eye-bleedin' Brain-Aneurysm-in' don't know where he be Biden not being able to handle the most basic and general and non-confrontational questions from the lefty Praetorian Guard "press".

Drago said...

Of course, it doesn't help the pathetic dems when their even more pathetic LLR-lefty Chuck approved "Squad" gals do what Tlaib did today 1 day after Hanukkah: Claimed the Israeli government is enacting Jim Crow laws in Israel against "Palestinians" (actually just Arabs since "Palestinians" is just a made up term coined in the 1960's by the PLO for political purposes) and, get this, GET THIS, "black Israeli's")

I hope you are proud of your dem/lefty allies/pals Chuck, because we are going to hang them around your neck every single day from now until the election....and forever after that as well.

Get used to it.

And you might as well have your minions Gary and the ridiculous gadfly get used to it as well.

Josephbleau said...

In Democrat party you whistle past graveyard.

In Soviet Russia graveyard whistle at YOU.

President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal said...

Trump's not a weak candidate at all - he's very strong actually, as the first presidential nominee let alone Republican in forever to have unlocked the secret to getting back industrial state votes that Reagan and the others did so much to help outsource. He's basically a one-man drumbeat for a party realignment on the right that is less antagonistic to working class issues - even infrastructure, and can summon his belligerent nationalism against military adventurism. It's a potent brew, especially when he can keep enough rich donors impressed by his "fiscally sound" assault on the environment et al and the regulations that preserve it, along with whatever lobbies/constituencies are still impressed by his traditional Republican assaults on education and other right-wing bugbears.

Nope, he's a strong candidate, and any Democrat who does not understand why deserves to lose. He's accelerating a long-overdue response on the left when it comes to regaining the mantle of working class champions who are also unafraid to stand against the war lobby, and the longer they take to get there the longer they'll keep getting whupped in the federal executive and by all his machinations there. What's perceived as weakness must be the lability of their responses combined with his perceived strength in figuring out long-neglected electoral needs LONG AGO.

FIDO said...

There are 1000+ Democrat Shrunken Heads lined up on the spiked fence outside the Obama compound, victims of Obamacare.

A THOUSAND Federal and State politicians who were all kinds of variety of moderate, coherent, and well regarded, all poll (sic) axed by an immoderate, incoherent, and ill regarded policy that Obama strong armed everyone on the Left and Middle of the Democratic party to support.

So you wonder why Dems are weak?

Obama butchered their bench and Hillary, with her knife, slit the throats of any semi-competent survivors so she could run unopposed.

Self inflicted wounds.

Narayanan said...

TJM said...
Is it now a requirement to be deaf, dumb and blind to write for the New York Times?
______&&&&&&&+++++++
That's sooooRuuuuuddde
To the readers who haven't figured it out.

Narayanan said...

Once again no one knows what the hell it is Left Bank is talking about.
_____&&&&&&++++++
Seems to be he thinks primary calendar is set by federal law? And not each party's politics.

Narayanan said...

Drago said ....
Michelle
___&&&&++++
Is there Spousal Executive Privilege to be claimed by Barack to avoid scrutiny?

Scott Anderson said...

School is not a place for smart people and the amount of schooling someone has completed has no relation whatsoever to intelligence.

Chris L said...

"When voters are given the dominant role in choosing a nominee — as with primaries here — only an unrepresentative subset tends to participate..."

Seems like he is arguing against popular vote. That there should be something other than raw vote totals that determines the nominee. Some sort of Electoral group...that determines who the President should be...

But the NYT and the Dems have assured me that the popular vote is the only thing that matters, so I must be misreading

SteveD said...

'If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?'

Umm...because they're even weaker?

wildswan said...

I'm sticking with Althouse's statement some posts back that the Dem problem is they can't find the right truth to power them to victory or, as I more cynically, would say, "They can't find the right lie." They can't find the truth (or the lie), so they can't find the candidate. They can't do what politicians have always easily done i.e. figure out how to pander, because, if you imagine a Venn diagram of intersecting circles of what the Dem party wants, you notice that the Dems are trying to keep the circles from intersecting. This they call diversity. And they have been somewhat successful such that now the Dem coalition as it sees itself has very little in common among its members. So it does frnzied freebies like a second-hand car salesman bidding war? And its slogan is "I'm from the government and I am here to help you."

Trump argued that lowering energy prices and taxes, negotiating better trade treaties, preventing illegal immigration and repealing onerous regulations would benefit all groups in American society by lowering unemployment, increasing small business opportunities, enlarging the US manufacturing sector, protecting farmers and inventors and increasing profits which 401Ks and city pensions depend on. So if you draw a Venn diagram you can see that his unique program is appealing to all workers (including big city minorities whose unemployment rates were terrifying under the previous regime), to both small and large business owners, to farmers, to entrepreneurs, to the retired.

FryingPanHead said...

Unknown said

Imperial Rome had televised murder?

Yep. Don't you remember how Augustus Caesar got on television in 1929 and tried to assuage fears of the depression?