I am of the opinion that the reason Democrats keep losing elections is because they usually nominate boring centrist candidates that don't actually stand for anything. Republicans, on the other hand, have a habit of nominating strong ideologues who are able to not only excite their base but also attract people easily manipulated by the passion of this idealism.
In other words, people are more attracted to a candidate who stands for something than a candidate who stands for nothing--even if that "something" is dangerous and wrong.
This is, in my opinion, why Al Gore lost in 2000, why John Kerry lost in 2004, and why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.
( I recently linked to a post from Phil in which he claimed this trend went all the way back to the 1980 election. Possibly. I didn't really start carefully following the news until the 1990s. But I remember 2000, 2004, and 2016 clearly, and these were all definitely years in which the Democrats lost because they nominated a bland centrist who had to campaign against a charismatic Republican ideologue.)
And so, I am convinced that the way to beat Donald Trump in 2020 is to nominate a progressive candidate who actually stands for something.
Of this year's crop of candidates, that would mean either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
I'd be happy with either of them. But of the two, Elizabeth Warren strikes me as the more viable. Mainly just for health reasons. Bernie Sanders is 78 years old (he'll be 79 in September) and has already had one heart attack this year. If we're going to put all of our progressive eggs into one basket, Elizabeth Warren seems like the safer basket at this point.
I had kind of assumed that everyone else would be doing the same math I was, and had assumed Elizabeth Warren would surge in the polls easily. And I'm slightly confused/concerned that this hasn't happened yet. (Admittedly I have a history of being wrong in my political predictions.) I guess we'll see what happens.
To be clear, I would be perfectly happy with Bernie if that's the way things work out. I would just be more happier with Elizabeth.
Bernie Bros, feel free to tell me what I'm overlooking in the comment section. I'm open to having my mind changed on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I suspect the mood of the American voter no matter what their leaning has shifted markedly, and any candidate that sounds even for a moment like they want to bring back the Washington of four years ago is steering themselves toward a humbling. In that regard, Sanders is the only candidate who has distinguished himself from the others. Just how successfully is debatable.
I don't know. I think that on the issues Warren is just as progressive as Sanders is. Or am I missing something?
(PS--I might well be missing something. I haven't been following the news this year as closely as I've done in years past)
Just speaking broadly, it's not uncommon for Warren to backtrack or qualify -- and that is absolutely deadly in the current environment. On the issue of raising taxes, for instance, she claims she will "delay implementation" so the middle-class won't feel the pain. Sanders flat-out admits even the middle-class needs to pay more, next question. I certainly share your concerns re: Sanders. It would be a more perfect world if someone younger had his line of thinking, gumption and political history.
Post a Comment