It is best to remember that what you want is not the same as what you need. So, my desire for a woman president should be considered in an honest way. I still think that the field suggests the best options are women. This is something of a closer question as you go down the list, to be clear (unfortunately, Kirsten Gillibrand has lost some luster here), but do think Warren and Harris remain the best options.
People have argued that dissidents should be honest about Biden's appeal. I'm willing to see some of that, but the problems have not disappeared. Recent polling does suggest (I will reference what I saw without links here) that Bernie Sanders is in trouble though. He still has second place, but a sort of distant second (one poll had Biden at around 35% and Sanders at 18%), providing hope that Biden (including for the anti-left) and Warren (for the left, at least those not sexist) is getting his support. If it was just Biden and Sanders, I still would be appalled enough to feel like not voting, but admit Biden is somewhat better as a whole on some level. Prudentially at the very least. Policy-wise, Sanders might be better if not practicably. To me, he remains a gadfly figure.
A basic problem with Biden for me is that he is sort of the "status quo ante" candidate, when we need to address bigger game. At some point, this has to be done, and 2020 is good of a time then ever. After all, we are facing Trump, not some generally bad candidate, who has some positives. As some have noted,* the problem is not just Trump. It is in effect Trumpism and to me Biden's focus on Trump here is in a way rather troublesome. the fact that Biden has some support here is duly noted. Temptation to avoid bigger problems is a common occurrence. But, the problems fester. More so if the "solution" denies part of the problem.
And, I will repeat, Biden has issues that make him problematic as a whole. First, he is going to be an issue for some in the Democratic Party as a whole, which the opponents will surely use. The response partially is that we cannot let them! Charming but a primary process is there to find the best candidate. This includes actually finding something wrong with the options you do not choose. If Biden has issues, including from some women (gaslighting them by denying there isn't any ... so helpful), they deserve to come out. This includes finding a "middle way" on let's say global warming. It is realistic to compromise, but at some point, compromising leads to weak positions. This isn't 2008 here.
One sentiment is that Biden (or Sanders) will appeal to Trump voters to some extent or at least the Trump curious. Some other candidates make such an appeal, including the two longshot female senators, who cite winning such voters in Minnesota and New York. I myself am somewhat intrigued as to the former as a sort of compromise candidate for that very reason though don't know how useful it would be in the long run. The old white dudes (yes, I say this with some scorn) are more blatant about it, at least in a dog whistle sort of way (McCain's family has expressed their admiration for Biden; a sort of Never Trump vote). This has a sort of tail leading the dog quality. At some point, we need to get past that.
An op-ed also addressed the problem of the Senate. It basically warns us that the Democrats have little chance in winning in 2020. I do not want to concede that -- admittedly, this is from someone who didn't want to concede 2018, which basically went as best as one could hope given the bad hand dealt. Still, there is still reason to credibly think the Democrats can eke out a victory at least in 2020. It would be better if more attention -- as things go, it is getting late -- was given to key races. There should be a clear understanding that, let's say all those Warren plans, Senate control is essential if we are to do more than simply get rid of Trump.
One intriguing thought is a proposal to give Native Americans representation in the Senate. Looking it up, population-wise, they very well would deserve it comparably. The idea of senators for both Atlantic and Pacific territories (two each) is also interesting though the population numbers work better (even on a "but Wyoming" level) as to the former. I have expressed my discomfort to giving D.C. two senators both on a population level and given it is more city, than state, but realistically, that too is worth serious thought given the system in place.
I also think the Laurence Tribe "at large" senators option is intriguing. The House of Lords was originally a matter of lords with certain territorial possessions, generally speaking, I suppose. But, in time, lords was added for a variety of reasons, in part to water down the original lords' power without needing to completely do away with the institution. At large senators would require a constitutional amendment, probably, but it doesn't seem to run into the special barrier to denying equal representation.
Dealing with things involve a range of governmental and non-governmental matters of diverse breadth. See, e.g., my recent comments on the progressive Christian writer that died recently. We saw this in the area of both guns and gays really -- change in the courts there was tied to change in society and local government. But, big picture governmental issues also are important to face up too and the Senate is one. It might seem like an impossible task. Did not other major changes over our history? Moving past the 27th Amendment joker, I don't think constitutional change suddenly ended around the time I was born.
The same applies to other matters -- impeachment of a president, two electoral over popular vote victories and (on the horror scale) destruction of the World Trade Centers all happened after 1990. Who would have thought most of these things (though a major terrorist attack probably is most believable, especially after the first bombing ... still after 1990) would have occurred even a few years earlier? Other than as thought experiments?
Trump in power is horrible. It is not possible. It is actuality. Let's think big in another way as well. The level of different, yeah yeah, but on some level a President Biden appalls me too. We need to think bigger. This includes the first woman president!
---
* The piece references a conclusion that Elizabeth Warren is the candidate who is seriously addressing the full breadth of the problem at hand. The blog used to have at least two contributors, to the degree they had a leaning, lean toward Gillibrand. Now, the sentiment is more Warren, even from a guy who sneered at the actual differences given other concerns.
Granting the force of the argument, I do lean toward Kamala Harris. She has recognized the problems at hand, including supporting starting impeachment proceedings, while providing something of a more moderate approach. This is my bow to pragmatics. She also has personal appeal, both charm and toughness (see questioning of Barr). She stands strong with Warren here.
A poll that put Biden in the lead by a significant degree (though only in the mid-30s among the field) put both Warren and Harris (a bit behind) as strong second choices ahead of the two old white dudes. May 2019 still seems rather early, but that is important in a large field. Hopefully, they both can eat into the support of the top two and gather general support.
People have argued that dissidents should be honest about Biden's appeal. I'm willing to see some of that, but the problems have not disappeared. Recent polling does suggest (I will reference what I saw without links here) that Bernie Sanders is in trouble though. He still has second place, but a sort of distant second (one poll had Biden at around 35% and Sanders at 18%), providing hope that Biden (including for the anti-left) and Warren (for the left, at least those not sexist) is getting his support. If it was just Biden and Sanders, I still would be appalled enough to feel like not voting, but admit Biden is somewhat better as a whole on some level. Prudentially at the very least. Policy-wise, Sanders might be better if not practicably. To me, he remains a gadfly figure.
A basic problem with Biden for me is that he is sort of the "status quo ante" candidate, when we need to address bigger game. At some point, this has to be done, and 2020 is good of a time then ever. After all, we are facing Trump, not some generally bad candidate, who has some positives. As some have noted,* the problem is not just Trump. It is in effect Trumpism and to me Biden's focus on Trump here is in a way rather troublesome. the fact that Biden has some support here is duly noted. Temptation to avoid bigger problems is a common occurrence. But, the problems fester. More so if the "solution" denies part of the problem.
And, I will repeat, Biden has issues that make him problematic as a whole. First, he is going to be an issue for some in the Democratic Party as a whole, which the opponents will surely use. The response partially is that we cannot let them! Charming but a primary process is there to find the best candidate. This includes actually finding something wrong with the options you do not choose. If Biden has issues, including from some women (gaslighting them by denying there isn't any ... so helpful), they deserve to come out. This includes finding a "middle way" on let's say global warming. It is realistic to compromise, but at some point, compromising leads to weak positions. This isn't 2008 here.
One sentiment is that Biden (or Sanders) will appeal to Trump voters to some extent or at least the Trump curious. Some other candidates make such an appeal, including the two longshot female senators, who cite winning such voters in Minnesota and New York. I myself am somewhat intrigued as to the former as a sort of compromise candidate for that very reason though don't know how useful it would be in the long run. The old white dudes (yes, I say this with some scorn) are more blatant about it, at least in a dog whistle sort of way (McCain's family has expressed their admiration for Biden; a sort of Never Trump vote). This has a sort of tail leading the dog quality. At some point, we need to get past that.
An op-ed also addressed the problem of the Senate. It basically warns us that the Democrats have little chance in winning in 2020. I do not want to concede that -- admittedly, this is from someone who didn't want to concede 2018, which basically went as best as one could hope given the bad hand dealt. Still, there is still reason to credibly think the Democrats can eke out a victory at least in 2020. It would be better if more attention -- as things go, it is getting late -- was given to key races. There should be a clear understanding that, let's say all those Warren plans, Senate control is essential if we are to do more than simply get rid of Trump.
One intriguing thought is a proposal to give Native Americans representation in the Senate. Looking it up, population-wise, they very well would deserve it comparably. The idea of senators for both Atlantic and Pacific territories (two each) is also interesting though the population numbers work better (even on a "but Wyoming" level) as to the former. I have expressed my discomfort to giving D.C. two senators both on a population level and given it is more city, than state, but realistically, that too is worth serious thought given the system in place.
I also think the Laurence Tribe "at large" senators option is intriguing. The House of Lords was originally a matter of lords with certain territorial possessions, generally speaking, I suppose. But, in time, lords was added for a variety of reasons, in part to water down the original lords' power without needing to completely do away with the institution. At large senators would require a constitutional amendment, probably, but it doesn't seem to run into the special barrier to denying equal representation.
Dealing with things involve a range of governmental and non-governmental matters of diverse breadth. See, e.g., my recent comments on the progressive Christian writer that died recently. We saw this in the area of both guns and gays really -- change in the courts there was tied to change in society and local government. But, big picture governmental issues also are important to face up too and the Senate is one. It might seem like an impossible task. Did not other major changes over our history? Moving past the 27th Amendment joker, I don't think constitutional change suddenly ended around the time I was born.
The same applies to other matters -- impeachment of a president, two electoral over popular vote victories and (on the horror scale) destruction of the World Trade Centers all happened after 1990. Who would have thought most of these things (though a major terrorist attack probably is most believable, especially after the first bombing ... still after 1990) would have occurred even a few years earlier? Other than as thought experiments?
Trump in power is horrible. It is not possible. It is actuality. Let's think big in another way as well. The level of different, yeah yeah, but on some level a President Biden appalls me too. We need to think bigger. This includes the first woman president!
---
* The piece references a conclusion that Elizabeth Warren is the candidate who is seriously addressing the full breadth of the problem at hand. The blog used to have at least two contributors, to the degree they had a leaning, lean toward Gillibrand. Now, the sentiment is more Warren, even from a guy who sneered at the actual differences given other concerns.
Granting the force of the argument, I do lean toward Kamala Harris. She has recognized the problems at hand, including supporting starting impeachment proceedings, while providing something of a more moderate approach. This is my bow to pragmatics. She also has personal appeal, both charm and toughness (see questioning of Barr). She stands strong with Warren here.
A poll that put Biden in the lead by a significant degree (though only in the mid-30s among the field) put both Warren and Harris (a bit behind) as strong second choices ahead of the two old white dudes. May 2019 still seems rather early, but that is important in a large field. Hopefully, they both can eat into the support of the top two and gather general support.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!