well, it's been months since we took the House.

[John Eppstein]

And now we have 23 candidates for President.

And no clear strategy to take back the Senate. Which means that even if we do kick Rump out of the White House the Party of Maleficent Obstructionists and Traitorous Spies will still be able to block any real progress in legislative programs, or attempts to roll back the damage of the past few years. And the packing of the courts is going to be a major problem.

Biden appears to be doing well, but I question his will to enact what needs to be done, plus as a candidate he still has the major drawback of being too strongly identified with the traditional power structure which will likely limit his appeal to the anti-establishment swing vote - plus his record is questionable. He talks about how "Progressive" he is but his voting record does not bear that out. He's a "Feinstein Progressive" a lot of talk but his actions belie his words.

I'm still hoping that Beto starts doing better in the polls - I think he's being seriously underestimated, but it's difficult for any candidates to get traction in the face of the massive existing political machines of Biden and Sanders. I was a strong Sanders supporter last time around but IMO his moment has passed and once again he could simply serve as a spoiler.

Beto does have the potential to be very appealing to the blue collar vote, which is going to be very important in 2020 - we are not going to win by appealing mainly to urban liberals, and Beto has the ability to be one of the few unifying candidates running in an election year when there is too much fractionalization, both inside the party and in the nation in general.

[unitymusic]

Who is "we"? The Democrats blew it big last time by shunning Bernie. It's time for the two party system to go, and a serious overhaul of our entire political structure.

[John Eppstein]

Who is "we"? The Democrats blew it big last time by shunning Bernie. It's time for the two party system to go, and a serious overhaul of our entire political structure.

I disagree, with what I believe is ample evidence. Just look at the mess that Italy (and similar countries) make of their politics - they can't get anything substantive done. And every 10 or so years they have a huge crisis, their economy tanks, and their government falls apart, only to be replaced by an equally unstable and divided government.

This is not a model we should emulate.

Right now the Democratic party (my "we") is in serious danger of making the same mistake. If everyone on one side of any of various issues are engaging in petty infighting over various "pet issues" that opens the door wide to having a well organized party with a good grasp of strategy stomp all over them - which is PRECISELY what the Republicans have done and may be about to do again to the Democrats*. The situation we're in is no accident - it's the culmination of decades of careful planning dating back to the days of FDR. Bob has talked about this in the past.

the old adage "United we stand, divided we fall" has never been more true than today.

Do you honestly think Bernie would have done any better by himself? I guarantee you that he would not - even though he was my preferred candidate in 2016 by a long shot. But when he lost the primary I voted for Hillary because I understood perfectly what would happen if Trump won. And guess what - I was 100% right. In fact it's even worse than I could imagine. And the reason that Trump won was that a sizeable number of Bernie supporters got all in a huff and opted to take their ball and go home, rather than focusing on what the actual issues were. And in doing so handed the game to Trump on a silver platter.

The definition of idiocy is refusing to learn from past mistakes.

I'll tell you this - right now Trump is, in fact, engaging in "a serious overhaul of our entire political structure". He will succeed if we don't set aside our petty bickering and make a serious effort to stop him. I don't like those prospects. And I bet you don't either.

At this point I'm definitely for Beto. He's not scary, he has loads of charisma - I haven't seen as charismatic a candidate since JFK, and if you listen carefully to what he says he's just as radical as any other candidate - but he knows when to hold his tongue and not blurt out scary crap that would alienate voters.

How radical is he? Well, he was a member of The Cult Of The Dead Cow - which was a Texas based group of radical white hat hackers who are commonly credited as being the first serious hacktivists, starting in 1984. As such he's probably the ONLY candidate qualified to deal with the serious cyberthreats threatening our political system, elections, and infrastructure. As far as I can tell, nobody else has a clue, especially not a couple of old farts like Biden and Bernie. (Bernie couldn't even deal with Hillary - how's he going to take on Russia, China, and the Saudis?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Dead_Cow.

* - Can you HONESTLY say that we would do any better if the Democratic party was fractured into a bunch of quarreling splinter groups, each pushing their own pet issue? Because I guarantee that the Republican party would regard that as the world's biggest Christmas present and we'd be living in a right wing theocratic dictatorship within less than 10 years, whether on not it was presented as such.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

Who is "we"? The Democrats blew it big last time by shunning Bernie. It's time for the two party system to go, and a serious overhaul of our entire political structure.

I disagree, with what I believe is ample evidence. Just look at the mess that Italy (and similar countries) make of their politics - they can't get anything substantive done. And every 10 or so years they have a huge crisis, their economy tanks, and their government falls apart, only to be replaced by an equally unstable and divided government.

This is not a model we should emulate.

A single data point is not ample evidence.

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan, South Korea...

Even France, with its two vote run-off, is a much better system. A trade-off between principled and tactical voting.

The UK and the US are split in two, and first-past-the-post is becoming unworkable. Both of us keep ending up with leaders who most of the population did not vote for.

[nobby]

But when he lost the primary I voted for Hillary because I understood perfectly what would happen if Trump won.

Which is what anyone who understood American politics and had any idea how terrible Trump would be as a president did.

Bernie's and Hillary's platforms were nearly identical but the GRU managed to manipulate petulant Bernie supporters easily, like taking candy from a baby.

[weedywet]

I don't agree that their stance on some major issues were "the same", just as Biden isn't where Warren is on some issues that are major for me

but still, whoever wins the primary gets my vote.

[Rev. Juda$ Sleaze]

I don't agree that their stance on some major issues were "the same", just as Biden isn't where Warren is on some issues that are major for me

but still, whoever wins the primary gets my vote.

I was thinking the same. And their track records are poles apart. If you didn't know, you wouldn't guess they are in the same political party.

[unitymusic]

I'm just so tired of "Identity politics"..

I'd rather play chess.

[weedywet]

“To tell Black voters to look beyond identity politics is silly because that's telling that voter that you are ignoring how their lives are being shaped through no fault of their own by racism, classism, sexism, ableism, and more.

The people who don't like to focus on identity politics are usually the people who benefit from shutting it down. ”

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1862576

[nobby]

The more I hear the candidates talk the more I like Warren.

[weedywet]

Me too

She talks about actual policies, has actual plans that she’s talking about now instead of vague references to ‘later’, and she doesn’t sugarcoat what she really thinks the country needs

[weedywet]

Me too

She talks about actual policies, has actual plans that she’s talking about now instead of vague references to ‘later’, and she doesn’t sugarcoat what she really thinks the country needs

[nobby]

I also think she has the courage of her convictions and is fighting for what she believes in (and we believe in). I think we could expect her to stand up to belligerent thugs when it becomes obvious that you can't work with them.

[John Eppstein]

I'm still for Beto but I do like Liz a lot. The only problem with her is that she might be too scary to a lot of people in middle America (although her programs would greatly benefit just those people.)

I'm becoming rather concerned about Pelosi's slow tracking of action vs Rump. She's a great tactician in the house but I tend to question her long term strategy - I don't think she's a very good strategist. Historically speaking, tactics (short term) and strategy (long term) are rarely found in the same person.

We need to take the presidency but it won't do a whole lot of good if we don't take control of the Senate and get rid of the master obstructionist McConnell. Long term he could be a bigger problem than Rump.