It was a bad night for Bernie Sanders. I'll know how bad as the day goes on and all the "feel the Bern" folks I encounter on social media react to events. I expect it to get all Kubler-Rossy before too long. Yes, some people are truly addled enough to believe that Bernie's insane math works, but my sense is that a lot of Bernie supporters simply recognize that Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate and a worse human being. That hasn't changed, even as the Hillary campaign slogs through the spring mud.
My take -- there are ambitious Democrats out there who sat out this cycle primarily because they were terrified of crossing the Clintons. If I were a Democrat who wanted to be president, I'd be secretly rooting for Hillary to lose to Trump, because that loss would clear the Clintons from the field once and for all. And if Trump were to get bored with being president, or preside over a disaster, it would set the Dems up nicely for 2020.
Of course, that would assume there's a viable Democrat out there who could run. There has to be one, right? Can you name one?
14 comments:
I can't think of one, and it's kinda scary if you take time to ponder that.
John Hickenlooper, Corey Booker, Julian Castro, Anthony Foxx, Janet Napolitano, Brian Schwitzer, Jay Insley, Dannel Malloy, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Udall, Andrew Cuomo...
The reason you find it hard is because you're correct about Clinton sucking the air out of the room. I think it goes a long way towards explaining the lousy choices on your side, too...the smart ones didn't want to be the guy that lost to her.
The only GOP presidential candidate with a future after this year is Scott Walker. Everyone else will be the ones who couldn't beat Trump, and Trump will be the guy who broke the party and made Hillary Clinton president. Walker looks like a prescient statesman for getting out when he did and admonishing Republicans to get behind one not-Trump.
The only person on your list that would have any shot at all is Hickenlooper, or maybe Warren. Dannel Malloy? Brian Schweitzer? Seriously?
The reason you find it hard is because you're correct about Clinton sucking the air out of the room. I think it goes a long way towards explaining the lousy choices on your side, too...the smart ones didn't want to be the guy that lost to her.
The problem isn't just Clinton. The other problem is Obama, who has been such a cult of personality that he's essentially eclipsed an entire generation of politicians behind him.
You do realize that if you'd polled an actual random sampling of Americans (hell, even voters) six months ago, a plurality of them would have told you that Ted Cruz was the guy in Top Gun, right?
You do realize that if you'd polled an actual random sampling of Americans (hell, even voters) six months ago, a plurality of them would have told you that Ted Cruz was the guy in Top Gun, right?
Sure. Those same people you mention think Dannel Malloy is a bad guy in the Harry Potter series. But I know who Malloy is and he wouldn't stand a chance. The only person on your list that is mostly unfamiliar to me is Foxx, but I did greatly admire his portrayal of Ray Charles a few years back.
The Dem meme for the election will be, "A pathological liar is better than someone who is pathological in everything."
the GOP fielded several experienced Chief Executives. thats what i'm mostly looking for when i recognise a viable bench.
not a first term senator who happens to be photogenic or have the right sounding name, but i understand most voters are shallow.
and Corey Booker... i remember he played for the Bears, was great WR for them in his time. yeah, i'd vote for him.
just for kicks, Brian... tell us who you prefer for president.
I voted for Bernie for yesterday. That reflects more my preference for the general direction of the Democratic party than it does for who should be president.
I reserve the right to change my mind, but I will most likely vote for Hillary in November. Choosing between her and Trump (or Cruz) is a lousy choice, but not one I find difficult in the slightest. If it isn't going to be close in NC (but it probably will be) I might vote for Gary Johnson.
What if the problem isn't the candidates for president? What if the problem is the electorate? I realize that no candidate can say that. Nor can any party. But it might well be true.
OR... what if our problem is systemic, not based on personalities or electorates at all? What if our system produces dysfunction over time. Over any short period of time we might see decent leaders, but as the field grows, we'll see a progression towards the mean. I'm no statistician. Not even close. But isn't that a possibility? And why do we keep assuming that our system is just plain awesome when the results suggest that this isn't necessarily true?
I realize that we've got some great stuff going for us. We're an economic powerhouse. We are a technological powerhouse. We're military bad-asses. In many ways, we're awesome!
But is it "because" of our system that we're awesome? Or are we lagging way behind our potential?
I happen to think it's somewhere in between. Our weaknesses are very exposed. We are INTENSELY DIVIDED; some of us hate each other way more than "our enemies." We are extremely prone to vote buying and to racial bladdy-blah. We are shallow.
To me, it seems like the SYSTEM itself is our god. Tons of people put their faith in the system. "Rock the Vote!" and all that. The right to vote is some kind of sacred task. But what if voting is like bringing your daughter to the castle lord? Oh goodie, I'm fulfilling my duty to the manor!
Blegh.
I'm with WB. If large portions of the electorate can't figure out that Hilliary and the Combover belong in prison, not the White House, we have some really, really big problems that don't have to do with our politicians per se.
Post a Comment