Not that anyone cares, but here are my "Way-too-Early Thoughts on the 2020 Democratic Primary."
1.
Elizabeth Warren came out of the gate strong. She's campaigning well, she's made connections, and she has answered questions well. I'm impressed. The more I see of her, the more impressed I get. Her Instagram "beer video," however, seems like a bit of a gaffe in hindsight. I would happily support her in the general election. I'm strongly considering voting for her in the primary, but I'm not committing to volunteer or donate to a candidate this early.
2.
Julian Castro has the right things to say and he's got some strong regional support, but I worry about his national support. He's getting buried by the bigger names and I don't see him recovering. It doesn't help that there's another Texan that many keep considering, even if he hasn't declared. I find it unlikely he goes anywhere in the primary. The other candidates have too much name recognition and are too good at campaigning. He would get my vote in the general election, but I don't see him getting my primary vote.
3.
Tulsi Gabbard has issues with her past positions, questionable international decisions, and rubbing many voters the wrong way. She is strangely not actively campaigning. If she's building an infrastructure to support later campaigning, that's great, but why did she announce before she was ready? I can't foresee any future where she gets my vote in the Kansas caucuses. The decisions are usually over by that point anyway, but with such a huge field, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. She would, of course, get my vote in the general election, but I don't see her getting my primary vote.
4.
John K. Delaney has done nothing to distinguish himself from the field. I
had honestly forgotten he was running. According to the Wikipedia page on his political positions, he's on the right side of most issues, and his campaign is focusing on gerrymandering and redistricting as major issues. He does not support Medicare-for-All as it's currently publicized but instead wants to slowly expand Medicare and slowly transition to a single-payer system. He's not on the record on most criminal justice reform issues. He's frequently painted as a "moderate," but he's probably more of a traditional Democrat than a "centrist." I don't know enough about him, but with so many strong candidates, he's unlikely to win me over. He would, of course, get my vote in the general election, but I don't see him getting my primary vote.
5.
Kirsten Gillibrand has some history to fix with progressive activists. She's a brilliant and passionate speaker, but she has only moved to the left over the past dozen years or so. She was once a conservative Democrat who did not share my views on many policies. She's said publicly and in interviews that she was working from incomplete information, and as she's learned more about the issues, her views have changed to better reflect the facts. This has led to her more progressive stance on everything from gun control to criminal justice. I'm glad she's learned. She's still had a tendency to make questionable choices like her (at least) neutral positions toward Wall Street and rushing to judgment on Al Franken. As I learn more about her, her interviews are impressive. She talks the talk well and seems earnest in her beliefs. She says she'll fight for equality, representation, and repairing America's standing in the world. She's got a track record of standing up to bullies and working with anyone who she can get on her side to build consensus. She looks formidable and I'd happily vote for her in the general election. I'm strongly considering voting for her in the primary, but I'm not committing to volunteer or donate to a candidate this early.
6.
Kamala Harris is a strong candidate. She has a compelling story as a former prosecutor and attorney general. She's a strong speaker and an intelligent planner. She comes from a history of activism and social justice. She knows the issues and fights strongly for them. She comes across well on television. She shares my views on every major political issue except trade. Her biggest weaknesses, in my opinion, are a tendency to look too "polished" and a mixed history on criminal justice due to decisions she says were made by people who worked for her. She does say that those decisions were ultimately her fault for not reviewing what the others were doing, so that concerns me a little. Her tendency to be polished looks like she's a little too "close to the vest" with her beliefs as if she's afraid of alienating people. I get it. I'm a "don't burn bridges" kind of guy. I just don't know if she will win over undecided voters in the primary without flying her true colors every chance she gets. There are too many people who show exactly who they are, and that quality is endearing to voters. Senator Harris just seems a little reserved. Her "For the People" message is strong, and her campaign is starting well. I look forward to seeing where she goes from here. I would happily support her in the general election. I'm strongly considering voting for her in the primary, but I'm not committing to volunteer or donate to a candidate this early.
7.
Pete Buttigieg (pronounced BOOT-idge-edge according to Pod Save America) is a relative unknown on the national scene. Obama mentioned him as an up-and-coming star a number of years ago. Until recently, he was the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and he helped turn that city around. He's a Harvard graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, a Veteran of the War in Afghanistan, and an openly gay married man. His parents were both professors at Notre Dame. He graduated magna cum laude. He's brilliant, well-educated, and articulate. I still don't see how he gets anywhere in this crowded field. He ran for Indiana State Treasurer in 2010 and lost by 25 points. He ran for the head of the DNC in 2017 and withdrew at the election meeting when it became clear that he would finish a distant third. He used his concession speech to encourage "Democrats to 'pay attention to communities like ours in the heart of the country not as an exotic species but as everyday Americans.' Buttigieg encouraged Democrats to engage with the next generation of liberals. 'There’s nothing wrong with our bench, we just haven’t called enough people off the bench and asked them to get on the field,' he said." (Quoted from The Hill's coverage of the 2017 DNC election by Jonathan Easley on 2/25/17.) He's an interesting candidate, but I don't see him breaking through the noise to deliver his message to voters without some serious backing from a major name like Sanders or the Obamas. He probably needs to run for Congress or move elsewhere to establish his political future where he can make a more significant impact on the national scene. I would happily support him in the general election if he pulled off the miracle it would likely take. I doubt I'll support him in the primary, but you never know.
8.
Andrew Yang is a largely unknown (on the national scene) former tech executive and startup founder whose main issue is a federal universal basic income. I like the issue. I like the idea. I don’t think we need to try the whole “businessman with little-to-no public service experience as President” thing again. It didn’t work so well the first time. I’d probably vote for him in the general, but I don’t see any way I’m supporting him in the primary.
9. On unannounced candidates:
9a. I really love
Joe Biden. He's a flawed and wonderful human being. I just don't think he should run for president. There's so much talent in the field, he doesn't need to. If he runs, I'll happily support him, but the reason you run for President is that you think you're the best person for the job. He is highly qualified, he knows what the job entails, he’s a thoughtful Democrat and he has a history with most of the leadership on the Hill that is endearing. But, and this is a big “but,” I think Dan Pfeiffer had a point on last Thursday’s PSA when he said something along the lines of, “Politics has changed and I’m not sure Biden has changed along with it.” (Paraphrased.) Biden likes to work across the aisle. (see number 10 below)
9b. I'm lukewarm on
Bernie Sanders. He's disconnected from a number of issues that are important to me--especially gun control. I love his pro-Labor and populist economic messages, but I worry that he has a history of choosing the wrong people to work with (or even worse, choosing the people who choose the wrong people). He still hasn't publicly acknowledged the Russian support his campaign unknowingly benefitted from in Putin's attempts to sabotage Hillary. There's just an element of naivete there that terrifies me. I really don’t want him to run, but if it means making Trump a one-term president, he will get my vote.
9c. I still like
Beto O'Rourke, and he still has a lot to offer the Democratic Party. He’s popular, a skilled fundraiser, a strong campaigner, and a good speaker. But if he doesn’t make a decision soon, it will probably be too late. I know a lot of former Bernie supporters who are keen on Beto. That’s fine. Come one come all! I don’t think he’d win in such a crowded primary, but I’d gladly support him in the general election.
9d.
Cory Booker just doesn’t excite me. I’m not sure why. He doesn’t inspire me like the other Senators or Beto. Most of his policy positions are fine. He’s got the financial support necessary to run a national campaign, but that might actually be a weakness. According to
opensecrets, more than 68% of his fundraising comes from wealthy donors who contributed more than $200. This is... concerning. He has also had issues navigating the tension around Israel and the BDS movement. If this is a sign of how he would handle sensitive issues in the White House, I’m not enthusiastic. I would vote for him in the general election, but I’m not sure I would support him in the primary.
9e. Others:
John W. Hickenlooper,
Eric Garcetti,
Michael Bloomberg,
Sherrod Brown... I’m not sold. I like Garcetti and Brown best of this group. Brown’s an excellent speaker and has a great message. Garcetti is extremely charismatic, but I don’t know enough about him. Bloomberg, Hickenlooper, and Schultz are all meh. Bloomberg’s views are way too “centrist.” Hickenlooper’s okay, but I’m not sold.
Schultz seems not at all interested in the party, and winning without party support is probably impossible. Governing without party support is a terrible idea. Anyone over Trump, but others appeal to me more than most of these guys.
10. Biden, and to a lesser extent the Senators who have declared, are STILL naive about Republicans. Biden suffers from the same delusion that Obama did in his first term--that Republicans in the current political environment will compromise to get things done. The current Republican party is only interested in power and securing their immediate short-term interests. They are not interested in the long-term health of the country or its people. They do not have a “big picture” view that is pro-America. They have a, “What have you done for me lately?” view that is destructive and regressive. The Republican party, and the media environment it exists in an ouroboros-li
ke parasitic relationship with (Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge, Coulter, Limbaugh, Shapiro, O’Reilly, Carlson, Pirro, Bannon, Steven Miller, and all the rest), see billionaire-funded racial identity politics as the way to keep the plebes busy hating each other while plundering the country’s wealth and dismissing the rest of the world to burn. This is not a healthy opposition party. There has not been a healthy Republican party in our country since the 1990s. Gingrich and Limbaugh stabbed it in the back and it’s been bleeding out ever since.
There is no need to try to appeal to that mentality. Do not propose legislation and policies that will be palatable to them. Do not dismiss Republican voters, but convince them directly. Force Republican politicians to see that going along with your positions is necessary to their own survival! Republican politicians truly embody the idea of, “I must know where my people are going so I may lead them!” They don’t propose bold policies and try to convince voters that they are right. They look at any changes that people are resistant to and try to convince voters that those changes must be wrong. To appeal to those voters, you have to propose ideas that will appeal to the vast majority of Americans. When Republican politicians see how popular those positions are, they will be forced to support them in the end.
Progressive policies are hugely popular on the national stage. Federal jobs guarantee, pro-Labor positions, women’s reproductive rights, healthcare as a right, paid family leave, free public college tuition, green jobs, green energy, criminal justice reform, marijuana decriminalization. All of these are ideas that are hugely popular nationwide. Don’t propose a compromise position to try to appeal to Republican politicians. They won’t see it as an attempt to get them on board; they will see it as a sign of weakness in your beliefs. They will attack at any hint of weakness and invent false weaknesses if there aren’t any real ones. You can’t work with that type of person.
It’s like this: If it will take 32 trillion dollars to make a universal healthcare system in the United States, don’t propose sixteen trillion dollars worth of reforms as an effort to bring Republicans on board. Tell them why it will take 40 trillion dollars to also implement free mental and dental health along with it. Tell them that you will pay for it by increasing estate taxes, implementing a wealth tax, raising capital gains to match the income tax, and adding a scaling payroll tax related to the median nationwide healthcare premiums paid before subsidies. Sell it to the voters that they will never have to pay a healthcare premium, copay, emergency room fee, prescription cost, or any other medical expense ever again. The median taxpayer will see a slight increase in their overall expenditures, but the wealthiest will see a significant one, and the bottom two quintiles should see a drop in total expenditures as they will no longer need to worry about paying anything for healthcare. (I have no idea if these numbers are even close to right. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am on the details. It doesn’t change my point.)
Make your argument to the voters.
Ignore the right-wing bubble that will attack anything you propose no matter how well-intentioned or catered to appeal to more conservative voters. Just ignore them. Let AOC or someone else who knows how to clap back at them handle it. That’s not your job. Go around them. Your job is to put the American people and their futures, as well as the people of the world, ahead of any corporation, any pundit, and any right-wing nutjob. If you can do good for the world while doing that, do it every chance you get. They will come along. They will kick and scream the whole way, but they will come.
Be bold. Your job is to lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will be reviewed and posted when approved.