“The primaries are making me nauseous. There is no chance that Bernie beats Trump. This has nothing to do with his policies. It’s just math. Democrats need moderates to swing left, and they’re not going to do that for Bernie. I like liberal policies as much as any Bernie fan, but I like the idea of never having to listen to Trump give a SOTU again even better.”
“If Bernie wins the nomination I'm voting for him. If Liz wins, I'm voting for her. If Amy, then her. If Petey, then him. Same with Joe. None of them has a platform that I like and honestly, I think all of them will make a terrible president. But that is better than what we have.”
I’m noticing a trend among my friends. We’d rather see bad things happen to our country, than see Trump win.
I heard conservatives having the same discussions over the last several election cycles.
Then there’s this from Donna Shalala.
“I'm hoping that in the future, Senator Sanders will take time to speak to some of my constituents before he decides to sing the praises of a murderous tyrant like Fidel Castro.”
And Chris Matthews.
“MSNBC host Chris Matthews fumed over Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) performance in the Nevada Caucuses on Saturday, comparing his apparent inevitable victory to Nazi Germany taking over France during World War II. “It looks like Bernie Sanders is hard to beat right now,” Matthews said. “I’m with Carville all the way in terms of the dangers of what lurks, what lies ahead in November. I’m very much aware that they’re sitting on so much oppo research on Bernie, what he said in the past about world affairs, how far-left he is … they are going to make the most of that in terms of world politics. They’re going to kill him.” Matthews continued, “I was reading last night, Brian, I know you’re a history guy too, I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940, and the general, Renault, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’ So I have that suppressed feeling. I can’t be as wild as Carville, but he is damn smart, and I think he’s damn right on this one.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
This is a great and reasonable question/point for Democrats to consider. Sadly, I don't think we can totally know the answer.
There are clearly some portion of progressives who are very excited about Sanders, including huge numbers of young adults. IF nominating Sanders results in larger number of young adults turning out to actually vote, along with latinos and African Americans being enthused by him, then who knows?
On the other hand, if they don't turn out and women are turned off by a Sanders nomination and they don't turn out and the Trump team successfully sells the "EVIL SOCIALIST" ticket and conservatives turn out in fear of that possibility, it may hurt the Democrats.
I just don't know if a more moderate candidate is going to enthuse the Democratic voters more than a more progressive one and I just don't know that we can know. I worry about a Sanders nomination (although his politics fits better with mine than a Biden or a Buttigieg).
Fortunately, Trump's support has rarely gone very far into the 40% category and perhaps with his financial records being released finally (as he failed to honor his early promises to release them), maybe there's enough corruption in the records so as to tarnish him enough that he will lose support for that. Ultimately, I think there is a great deal of Trump fatigue by well over half the nation and I think most of us will be glad when he's gone. So, I'm hopeful.
We'll see.
The person who wrote the above is a very liberal young married woman with a young child.
The view that seems to be inherent in your response (in contrast to hers) is that literally anything or anyone would be better for the country than Trump. I think this is also a reasonable question to ask.
When you refer to the “evil socialist” label and attribute it to Trump, I can only presume you didn’t watch the Nevada debate the other night. The other DFL candidates are pushing that narrative as well.
Although it seems like a moot point right now, is it safe to conclude that your anyone but Trump attitude would convince you to support Bloomberg?
The view that seems to be inherent in your response (in contrast to hers) is that literally anything or anyone would be better for the country than Trump.
Clearly, any of the Democratic candidates are a better choice than Trump. I don't know how else to say it but that Trump is not fit for office. Period. So therefore, anyone who IS fit for office is a better choice than Trump. And George W Bush, Jeb Bush, all the Democrats... they're all fit for office and thus, are all a better choice. Trump is simply not a choice, or should not be to reasonable, moral-minded adults. But no, I'm not saying literally anything or anyone is a better option than Trump. Just anyone who is fit for office is better than someone who is not fit for office.
That's the view of some half+ of the nation, plus huge numbers of experts and scholars (the historians, the scientists, the educators, the environmentalists, the constitutionalists, the legal scholars, the foreign policy scholars, many of the generals and military experts, etc, etc).
Yes, I'd support Bloomberg over Trump, but that's a helluva choice. I entirely disagree with these ultra wealthy people with little experience in anything but being rich running for office and, while Bloomberg DOES have experience, I disagree with the optics of running another ultra-wealthy old white guy with questionable behaviors in his past running against Trump. That he IS fit for office (unlike Trump) and no where near as awful as Trump is not a good "look" for the Democrats.
The other DFL candidates are pushing that narrative as well.
I would suggest that they don't think that Bernie's Democratic socialist ideas are evil, but that Trump and those who fear monger about socialism will make it difficult for him to win, and thus, should not be the nominee.
I'm saying that if one listens to what they're saying that they're clearly not fans of it at all. I'm pretty sure someone used the term Communist the other night.
I'm guessing that most on the right wouldn't say evil either. It's so much more effective to simply point out things like how the math doesn't work, and how the Scandinavian countries aren't great examples (per the data), about the fact that he lied about releasing his medical information, etc. There's plenty to run against Bernie on that has substance.
Clearly, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.
You do realize that people like you, who spent the 2016 campaign demonizing every non Trump candidate as unfit for office own a bit of responsibility for him being elected. I could go back and pull your quotes about Bush, Cruz, and others but if you're honest you'll own what you said.
The problem with your appeal to authority is that it's virtually impossible to back up the claim as stated with any accuracy. Clearly, the voting record doesn't bear out your claim, and opinion polls aren't definitive, objective proof on anything.
It's interesting that you're willing to get behind a rich, old, white billionaire with a history of sexual abuse of women, and lies. Makes me wonder how deep your convictions are. You probably don't realize that your reasons sound virtually identical to those who "held their noses" and voted for Trump.
I honestly don't remember, but I'd be willing to bet that I said almost nothing about Cruz, Jeb Bush and the other candidates. You're perhaps thinking of some other person you've spoken with.
There's my 2016 blog entries and, as you can see, no mention of any of the candidates, at least insofar as my posts are concerned. And only two posts about Trump.
So, I don't know that I have any responsibility for Trump winning, at least insofar as I did not demonize the other candidates. I think you're just mistaken. It happens.
a history of sexual abuse of women
I have not heard of any history of sexual abuse of women. If any of the Dem candidates have that history, they are unfit for office. Period. I think what I've heard suggested is that Bloomberg has a history of making inappropriate jokes and that may, in and of itself be enough to make him unfit. It would all depend on the details.
I'm consistent that way. I would never vote for a man who, for instance, boasted about grabbing women by the crotch, sexually assaulting women or using his power and wealth to ogle naked teenagers. That's loathsome and should be a simple and easy, "NOPE, you're disqualified." And it is, for me. Unfortunately, your "family value conservatives" are willing to cross that line. And, as Al Mohler noted, that means conservatives who give a pass to Trump are no longer morally or rationally credible.
So, I've been quite clear that I will oppose anyone who acts like Donald Trump does towards women. I will oppose him and encourage anyone else will listen to oppose such a person.
I've heard you say here lately that you may consider voting for Trump this time around. Are your convictions wavering on the point?
Given the nasty things you’ve said about GW Bush, I’m shocked you won’t admit you’ve said similar things about other GOP candidates.
Be that as it may, are you seriously denying that there were numerous liberals demonizing and bashing the entire GOP field in 16? And you’re going to seriously suggest that those attacks had absolutely zero impact on Trump getting elected.
Fortunately for you, Bloomberg is unlikely to get to the general and we won’t have to see if you’ve got the spine to stand up to your convictions.
Yes, I’m considering casting my pointless vote based on what’s best for me. Which means Trump.
Your analysis of the situation is accurate. In 2016, I found Clinton to be the greater of two evils, and not just because I believe her to be a detestable person. Her policy positions were also objectionable, while Trump's were not. The choice, then, was easy and he's more than proven to have been worthy of having taken the risk. There's absolutely no question the nation is better off than it was before he took office. As such, there is no argument that can be made to suggest any of the Dem clowns vying to replace him could possibly do more than reverse the good he's done and harm the nation. Their positions are all variations on the same destructive leftist theme. Those positions include that which would bring about far more harm to women in more ways than anything Trump has ever done or has been accused of doing. Dan supports many, if not all, of those anti-female positions.
To be fair, even Carville agrees that Bernie is a bad idea.
I’ll say that it’s easier to vote for Trump based on his policies (even though he’s dropped the ball in some areas), now that’s he’s got an actual record. It’s hard to believe that there are people who’d rather see things get worse, than a Trump second term. For me, it’s the simple fact that anything but a Trump win will probably hurt my business, and I’d love a couple of years of stability to build my client base.
So then, just to be clear, I would not vote for Democrat who have behaved like Trump. You might. And that's one difference between us. I hope you can see that at least I am being consistent. After all, I wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton and he had much less baggage then Trump did. So you can see the this is at least consistent to my values?
And just to be clear, no I did not bash the GOP candidates. I'm sure it's possible I talked about their weaknesses, but for the most part, I tend to wait until we have a nominee to address the GOP candidate. Mainly, I don't have the time and since it's a moot point since I won't be voting for them... unless there's something outrageous about them, like there was with Trump, then I just don't talk about them. Even with Trump, if you look at my blog, you will see I didn't address him before he was nominated .
So, you are factually mistaken. No worries, it happens. I just want to be clear.
Regarding George W bush, my harsh words we're about his policies, his invasion of a country unprovoked that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. That's something worth getting angry about. The never said he was unfit in the sense that Trump is. Just that his policies were wrong.
You'd vote for person you find to find to be the testable, corrupt, untrustworthy out of fear that it might hurt your business?
if so, that's another difference between you and me. I wouldn't put my personal business ahead of someone I believed to be unfit for office, someone who I feel to be corrupt, someone who I believe has assaulted women because he has said as much. This is the concern that somewhere over half of the nation has with Trump Defenders. There appears to be no line that he can cross that you wouldn't give him a pass on.
And yet you voted for Bill Clinton. Actions speak louder than words.
Yes, my self interest is a part of my voting decision. But more so, the policies that help me and my business also help millions of others and drive a significant portion of the economy. So yeah, I’m more likely to vote for the candidate who’s policies are going to help me and the economy.
To be clear, because you frequently see what you want to see not what is. I’m saying that I am more likely to vote Trump than Sanders based on what I’ve seen of his policies. It’s still theoretical at this point.
I may vote for Amy in the primary just to help the DNC screw Bernie this time around as well.
? And yet, I did NOT vote for Bill Clinton. I've been quite clear, I found the allegations against him to be troubling enough that wouldn't vote for him in either of his runs for office. Further, I supported him stepping down or being removed from office for the consensual affair he had with Lewinsky. I am being consistent. Can you see that and at least honor that in those of us like me who are consistent?
If that’s the case, then I won’t dispute your claim.
If your consistency crossed party lines I’d be more impressed. Of course, if you’d accorded me the same respect for consistency that you want for yourself, I’d also be more impressed. Unfortunately you’ve chosen otherwise, as you sometimes do.
It’s interesting that you are apparently willing to forgive Hillary for her involvement/enabling of Bill’s various sexual escapades.
If your consistency crossed party lines I’d be more impressed.
I don't understand. I would not vote for Democrat, Bill Clinton, because of the hints of his potential sexual harassment (or worse). I wouldn't vote (of course) for Republican Trump for doing much worse and doing so publicly (or at least laughing about it publicly). That is consistent. It doesn't matter WHO the candidate is or what party they are with, if they cross that line of sexually assaulting women (or even if it looks likely that they did, even though it can't be proven), then I would not vote for them. I'm not sure how that isn't consistency across party lines.
As to Hillary Clinton, she was the VICTIM (one of the victims) in BC's sexual dalliances (and possibly worse). I don't blame Hillary for what Bill did any more than I blame Melania Trump for what her husband did. Why would I? I don't see that she was "involved" at all (she was humiliated by his sexual dalliances!) nor that she "enabled" his misdeeds. But if you think I should blame her for that, are you blaming Melania for her husband's much worse sexual harassment/assaults?
And again, just to be clear: I am being consistent: I wouldn't vote for ANY candidate who sexually harassed/assaulted women. Of course! That's a line that should not be crossed by anyone!
And yet, so many conservatives are willing to cross that line (including potentially you). Even though they publicly condemned B Clinton for much less. So, those conservatives are being hypocritical and I am being consistent... Is that fair?
And also, I would not vote for a candidate who i believe crossed such a line (sexual assault, etc), EVEN IF that candidate might benefit me/my bottom line or I preferred his/her policies. Of course! That's not anything that anyone should do!
And yet, you appear to be considering voting for someone who had crossed that line for partially that reason. That is a difference between me and you. Is that correct?
Look, I get that you’re making claims about what you’ve done/would and that’s awesome.
I’m a little surprised that you aren’t aware of Hillary’s role in organizing the attacks on Bill’s accusers.
I’m going to note that you demanded proof when I used a personal anecdote, yet you just assume that you should be trusted when you make these sorts of claims.
Finally, you’d have more credibility if you’d criticize dems for things that are current, not 30 years ago.
Acknowledging that I’m considering voting for the candidate who’s least likely to damage a large segment of the economy (which I’m involved in), is being honest. You’ve already said you’d vote for Bloomberg, apparently sexual harassment doesn’t cross your magical lines.
Matthews continued, “I was reading last night, Brian, I know you’re a history guy too, I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940, and the general, Renault, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says ‘How can it be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’ So I have that suppressed feeling. I can’t be as wild as Carville, but he is damn smart, and I think he’s damn right on this one. Ultimately, as it relates to you, it doesn’t matter what I do. You’ve been falsely saying that I supported Trump in 2016 for years. You won’t be honest about it or acknowledge my acting on principle, but you expect the opposite.
You’ve done an excellent job of moving the topic away from liberals discussing the potential disaster of Bernie winning the primary.
If Bernie is your candidate you’re virtually guaranteeing a Trump win.
If that happens y’all will still blame it on everyone but yourselves and Bernie.
Re: voting for Bloomberg. I was quite clear that I would not vote for him if he has committed sexual assault or harassment in the same way that Trump has.
I would not vote for him.
That's what I said. I would not vote for him.
I think the accusations about him are nit fully known yet, I don't believe it's clear or known what he has and hasn't said. He's a new candidate to me and I have not been following him.
But once again, IF he has committed sexual assault of the sort that Trump has laughed about, he would not get my vote. I am consistent and you are mistaken. I hope that helps you understand my actual position.
Bernie is not my candidate, although I do like him. I'm currently leaning towards Warren.
Dan frets over abuse of women yet supports their destruction in the womb, and the harm to women who abort. He supports the party that brought us men competing against women, including in combat sports. And of course the harm that befalls women as s result of a damaged economy. But he's consistent in such support, so...
You’ve done a great job moving this away from the growing number of liberals who are scared of Bernie as the candidate, and all about you. Maybe it’s easier to talk about how principled you are and how your better than others instead of why Bernie is awesome.
The problem is, I think you’ve tipped your hand. You don’t think Bernie is awesome. But you think it makes you more principled to vote for a bad candidate than to vote for Trump. Now it’s making sense.
I’m curious. What specific “sexual assault” has Trump been proven to have committed?
1. The point of this post isn’t about preferences in the primary, it’s about the general election DFL candidate. You’ve emphatically said you’ll support anyone against Trump, so if Bernie’s it, he’s your guy.
1a. I don't think you understand that the discussion isn't about personal preference, and who individuals vote for. It's about how this candidate (specifically Bernie, but the question was asked about Trump, but specifically Bernie) and his specific potential policies/baggage are going to affect the DFL. Further, it's about if those effects will be long term or short term. It's tangentially about what DFL voters do if they don't vote for Sanders.
1b. But feel free to make it all about you.
2. For someone who talks a lot about honesty being important, Warren is a bizarre choice.
"I don't think Hilary is any less ethical than most other candidates. Given the options, I'd easily vote for Clinton. I don't much care for her, but its not even a contest against any GOP candidate."
It's not specifically a shot at any particular GOP candidate, but you literally claimed that Hillary was more ethical than every single GOP candidate in 2016.
That's funny.
I didn't have time to get everything, but there's all kinds of less than flattering stuff in the various comment threads.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find his comments trashing Ben Carson as corrupt. I'll probably keep looking, but with all his comments at multiple bogs, it's a challenge.
But it is amusing that he thought Hillary was lass corrupt than every single GOP candidate in 2016.
A good indicator of Dan's own moral corruption.
A valid opinion.
Since I’m banned from Dan’s, I’ll point out the obvious that appealing to a lot of opinions isn’t actually the same as proof.
If you're referring to his latest post, that seems to be what he's doing...again. I'd love to offer my thoughts there, but I have absolutely no confidence he'll respond in an honorable and honest manner, preferring instead to hide behind bs accusations of attacking women and defending rape. It's how he rolls.
Post a Comment