If people wanted moderates, they wouldn't have elected the world's most impulsive extremist... twice. Once you could maybe rationalize away, but not now. Any Democrats preaching moderation immediately lose my vote because it proves how incredibly naive they are about the true state of the electorate. Joe Biden is proof that moderation didn't earn Democrats one shred of respect or loyalty in the 2024 election. I wouldn't vote for Biden if he was still a primary candidate today.
“Instead of trying to figure out which candidate someone else might like, vote for the candidate you like, and you’ll probably wind up doing better in the end.”
What a radical idea, Paul!
What say you, however, of Francesca Hong‘s quote “I support defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police?”
Ron, my heart is with you, but it won't happen. and if it did you might miss them. Better to vote for someone who will hold the police responsible. It's doable if we ever have an honest congress or state legislature.
“I can’t say for sure which of those two [Cooper and Stevens] is more electable, because we can’t run the experiment twice.”
More to the point, North Carolina and Michigan are different places. I doubt that El-Sayed would be competitive against anyone in North Carolina; I’d also argue that he’s the best candidate in Michigan.
Paul, i think you are right, given that "electibility" would be important sometimes and maybe even the best choice if Electible has reasonable policy ideas. I would add to your list of reasonable policies, besides Medicare for All. Vote against any politician who signs on to the ongoing destruction of Social Security. They have (both parties and even the Progressives) been trying to kill SS for 90 years. They finally have the votes to do it. (with help from both parties as well as the Progressives. and they have the Bipartisan Committee to do it without fingerprints. So you need to elect candidates WITH fingerprints to NOT do it. SS gan be saved forever by just raising the payroll tax... your money for your own needs when you can no longer work..about two dollars per week for the next ten years, while wages will be going up about ten dollars per week per year over the same time. Cutting benefits will kill people, Taxing the rich will give the rich ownership of the program and they will kill it one cut at a time. Raising the retirement age will ensure about 10% of the people who paid into Social Security so they could retire at a reasonable age will not live to retire at all. Making the government pay for it will increase the National Debt and then they will kill SS to save us from the Debt. ONLY worker pay will save it, and you get your money back three times over when you will need it much more than you need it now. Two Dollars per Week. Is that worth selling it to the to the Rich because you are so mad at the Rich?
Great article, and though I haven't yet checked out your piece at Public Notice (but I will, shortly), it's obvious that the electability issue and the money in politics issue are critically intertwined. Since corporate, billionaire and super PAC money entered politics, the Democrat "establishment" began to prioritize pleasing donors over responding to working class voters' needs. It will be difficult to alter that trajectory unless we are able to somehow reform the "system" to get the corruption of money out of politics. Meanwhile, your astute commentary regarding what should be considered in order to determine "electability" is a wise and, I believe, accurate assessment that could - hopefully - alter the current faulty landscape on electability that we inhabit. Thank you for your input in these dark and difficult times we live in and for sharing rational, factual information to help educate us about the way forward.
I was one of the objecters to your PN column, and you make a good case here re electability. Re MI: I agree that AES by all accounts is a better politician than Stevens, and I’m not sure Stevens would beat Rogers. I get your point about Obama, and the question is whether the timing is right for another unconventional candidate like AES. I think he will do much better than a candidate like him would in most years, but I continue to think he’s a poor fit overall with MI and will still lose. I wish McMorrow had stayed in and Stevens would have dropped out.
In 2016 in Virginia Clinton ran against Bernie. I voted for Clinton, even though I like Bernie better and gave him some money. I did it because of electability. Hah! I was wrong. Bernie would have flattened Trump. So, if I were in Michigan, I’d have to vote for the better campaigner. And that’s the one who’s a real protest vote. Nice coincidence.
Dunno about Wisconsin. Abolish Thanksgiving? That idea is a real turkey. But, you know, if she’s gonna win the primary, there must be something there.
“Should they keep attacking progressive candidates who won, in order to fight a supposed “battle for the soul of the party,” or should they do everything they can to help those candidates win even if they aren’t all that comfortable with them? You can probably imagine which position I take, but I think the full argument might be worth your time.”
Writing as one who is fed up with both, I’d rewrite this:
“Should progressives/moderates keep attacking progressive/moderate candidates who won, in order to fight a supposed “battle for the soul of the party,” or should they do everything they can to help those candidates win even if they aren’t all that comfortable with them?”
I’m “progressive” by policy preference and moderate in temperament. I don’t believe that anyone who disagrees with me is a “corporate Democrat” or an appeaser, nor does shouting people down do anything for me. At the same time, I’m fed up with consultants and the back room shenanigans of establishment pols and the cluelessness of party leadership.
In the words of Rodney King, can’t we all get along? Save the ire for the real enemy.
how about "all politicians lie all the time"? to give them their due, they have to lie; otherwise "the people" would not vote for them. [for what it's worth, i don't think FDR lied all the time. he gave his radio talks time enough to explain is policy to them. i don't know if they understood him, but they liked the way he talked about it. and he delivered on those policies in spite of the..ahem...Republican lies at the time...and for almost all time since Lincoln...who almost did not lie except in a higher cause...which is probably why some people on the Left call him a racist.
If people wanted moderates, they wouldn't have elected the world's most impulsive extremist... twice. Once you could maybe rationalize away, but not now. Any Democrats preaching moderation immediately lose my vote because it proves how incredibly naive they are about the true state of the electorate. Joe Biden is proof that moderation didn't earn Democrats one shred of respect or loyalty in the 2024 election. I wouldn't vote for Biden if he was still a primary candidate today.
“Instead of trying to figure out which candidate someone else might like, vote for the candidate you like, and you’ll probably wind up doing better in the end.”
What a radical idea, Paul!
What say you, however, of Francesca Hong‘s quote “I support defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police?”
Ron, my heart is with you, but it won't happen. and if it did you might miss them. Better to vote for someone who will hold the police responsible. It's doable if we ever have an honest congress or state legislature.
Oh brother. Along with the Thanksgiving stuff, the GOP attack ads will write themselves.
“I can’t say for sure which of those two [Cooper and Stevens] is more electable, because we can’t run the experiment twice.”
More to the point, North Carolina and Michigan are different places. I doubt that El-Sayed would be competitive against anyone in North Carolina; I’d also argue that he’s the best candidate in Michigan.
Vote for the candidate of your choice in the primary. Rally support for your primary choice, but support the general election candidate.
Electability sounds as if the candidate you didn’t support is the nominee, oh f it. Trump it is
It’s that simple.
Great insights as always. Thanks, Paul!
Paul, i think you are right, given that "electibility" would be important sometimes and maybe even the best choice if Electible has reasonable policy ideas. I would add to your list of reasonable policies, besides Medicare for All. Vote against any politician who signs on to the ongoing destruction of Social Security. They have (both parties and even the Progressives) been trying to kill SS for 90 years. They finally have the votes to do it. (with help from both parties as well as the Progressives. and they have the Bipartisan Committee to do it without fingerprints. So you need to elect candidates WITH fingerprints to NOT do it. SS gan be saved forever by just raising the payroll tax... your money for your own needs when you can no longer work..about two dollars per week for the next ten years, while wages will be going up about ten dollars per week per year over the same time. Cutting benefits will kill people, Taxing the rich will give the rich ownership of the program and they will kill it one cut at a time. Raising the retirement age will ensure about 10% of the people who paid into Social Security so they could retire at a reasonable age will not live to retire at all. Making the government pay for it will increase the National Debt and then they will kill SS to save us from the Debt. ONLY worker pay will save it, and you get your money back three times over when you will need it much more than you need it now. Two Dollars per Week. Is that worth selling it to the to the Rich because you are so mad at the Rich?
Great article, and though I haven't yet checked out your piece at Public Notice (but I will, shortly), it's obvious that the electability issue and the money in politics issue are critically intertwined. Since corporate, billionaire and super PAC money entered politics, the Democrat "establishment" began to prioritize pleasing donors over responding to working class voters' needs. It will be difficult to alter that trajectory unless we are able to somehow reform the "system" to get the corruption of money out of politics. Meanwhile, your astute commentary regarding what should be considered in order to determine "electability" is a wise and, I believe, accurate assessment that could - hopefully - alter the current faulty landscape on electability that we inhabit. Thank you for your input in these dark and difficult times we live in and for sharing rational, factual information to help educate us about the way forward.
I was one of the objecters to your PN column, and you make a good case here re electability. Re MI: I agree that AES by all accounts is a better politician than Stevens, and I’m not sure Stevens would beat Rogers. I get your point about Obama, and the question is whether the timing is right for another unconventional candidate like AES. I think he will do much better than a candidate like him would in most years, but I continue to think he’s a poor fit overall with MI and will still lose. I wish McMorrow had stayed in and Stevens would have dropped out.
In 2016 in Virginia Clinton ran against Bernie. I voted for Clinton, even though I like Bernie better and gave him some money. I did it because of electability. Hah! I was wrong. Bernie would have flattened Trump. So, if I were in Michigan, I’d have to vote for the better campaigner. And that’s the one who’s a real protest vote. Nice coincidence.
Dunno about Wisconsin. Abolish Thanksgiving? That idea is a real turkey. But, you know, if she’s gonna win the primary, there must be something there.
IMHO, often the key factors that make a good candidate are competence and authenticity. Stevens loses on both.
“Should they keep attacking progressive candidates who won, in order to fight a supposed “battle for the soul of the party,” or should they do everything they can to help those candidates win even if they aren’t all that comfortable with them? You can probably imagine which position I take, but I think the full argument might be worth your time.”
Writing as one who is fed up with both, I’d rewrite this:
“Should progressives/moderates keep attacking progressive/moderate candidates who won, in order to fight a supposed “battle for the soul of the party,” or should they do everything they can to help those candidates win even if they aren’t all that comfortable with them?”
I’m “progressive” by policy preference and moderate in temperament. I don’t believe that anyone who disagrees with me is a “corporate Democrat” or an appeaser, nor does shouting people down do anything for me. At the same time, I’m fed up with consultants and the back room shenanigans of establishment pols and the cluelessness of party leadership.
In the words of Rodney King, can’t we all get along? Save the ire for the real enemy.
Primary voters on both sides push the candidates their direction. This election cycle that may well work. It doesn't mean it will work in the future.
I hope elections still matter.
Nothing is certain in politics.
how about "all politicians lie all the time"? to give them their due, they have to lie; otherwise "the people" would not vote for them. [for what it's worth, i don't think FDR lied all the time. he gave his radio talks time enough to explain is policy to them. i don't know if they understood him, but they liked the way he talked about it. and he delivered on those policies in spite of the..ahem...Republican lies at the time...and for almost all time since Lincoln...who almost did not lie except in a higher cause...which is probably why some people on the Left call him a racist.