Help me out. I was in the streets at Chicago in 1968 for McCarthy with the “people in exile”. I bled Massachusetts Blue with McGovern in ‘72 (“Nixon 49 America 1” and “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts” were the twin bumper stickers for years on my 1964 Studebaker). In that same year of 1972 I was narrowly defeated as a Democrat against an incumbent Republican for state representative in a rural district in Massachusetts that had only once elected an Democrat — when the Bull Moose party split the Republican vote in 1912!.
Fast forward... I came to Daily Kos in 2003 (#3013, registered Nov 5, 2003) looking for a new McGovern, in this case Howard Dean. There is no day in 13 years that I have not checked in here, so I value the opinions of those who preside and contribute here, and I am grateful for Markos for having the guts and skills to found and nourish this community.
Over all those years, I have never written a diary. Now, talk to me.
Many times in my life I have felt we are are at a political apocalypse, at which the wrong choice leads to doom. More often than not, the path to my perceived doom has been taken, yet we somehow go on, with ever lowered expectations. Sure, I’m a white, educated, male (tall, not overweight, old being my only disadvantage now), so I can weather the endless disappointments better than most — though even I live on Social Security and some savings — but what are we to make of the current political situation?
We know where we are with Republicans: 50 years of dog-whistles or more overt calls to racism, xenophobia, sexism, bring us to Donald Trump and the rest of the clown car among which there is not a dime’s worth of difference on actual policy. How to peal off just enough of those misguided souls who have bought into their three-card -Monte over those decades is a tough question. I will not try to address that here. Hint: Who can translate into a meaningful political movement that graph that shows productivity and earnings rising in concert from the 40s to 1980, and productivity on the same trajectory but earnings flat since 1980, will change the history of the Republic.
Yet is is those very victims of the current system to whom Republicans appeal, none more openly and crudely that Donald Trump, but all of them from Nixon on. Over and over.
But, back to basics: Bernie or Hillary?
At his point, tactics are all for me, which as a McCarthy/McGovern/Dean partisan is hard to admit.
Here’s my tactical analysis:
Structurally, Democrats should have a hard time losing the presidency. There’s a lot behind that, but I assume you all get it (Brag point — in 2008 I came in something like 25th in the whole DailyKos guess on the outcome of the presidency/Senate/House, not because I’m all that smart, but because I paid attention to the detail, including what I found here). So, all I care about is which Democratic candidate might be most susceptible to losing the natural advantage? That is, who might lose some of these states: (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado,etc. — hey, you don’t need me to name these!)
Let’s get down to it and talk about Bernie vs. Hillary — which is most likely NOT to blow this structural; electoral college advantage.
Bernie:
Pro: pure, clean, right on the basic issues, able to pump up turnout. (proof for the latter? i.e., youth vs black vote as key to raising — or maintaining — the Obama coalition turnout?)
Con: Lots of slogans without a lot of the subtlety needed by a successful pol, tendency to focus on lost causes rather than key points (i.e., why waste effort on a futile undefined expensive single payer just when we finally managed to join the level of Germany in 1884 and the rest of the industrial world by the early 20th century, rather than basic economic issues? Ouch. I admit, this is partially my own feeling rather than a disinterested analysis, but, hey, give me a little room here) A socialist. Seriously? No, of course he is not. Unless you think of the center-left of the great European democracies. But few Americans understand that. By embracing that affectation he shows he is not serious and leaves himself deeply vulnerable to vicious attacks. Can he educate us in that process? That would be nice, but I seriously doubt it. But I would vote for him gladly as a serious man trying to address root causes for the decline of this country, even as I find him simplistic and remote.
Hillary:
Pro: Smart, subtle, a player in any game. heart in the right place
Con: Where to start? And that’s the problem. Fair or unfair, you all know where the attacks will come from. Some are fair (Wall Street) some are not (Benghazi, Bill). For me, the issue is Iraq. I believe, with all my heart and with no proof, that both Clinton and Kerry voted for war because they believed to do the right thing would endanger their presidential aspirations. For me, a young man from the Vietnam era, a student of history, this is almost unforgivable. Yet I will gladly vote for her, even if I find her Iraq vote a horrible stain and her inclination for war, by executive action, very dangerous, and her connections to the entrenched power brokers ominous
As I say, talk to me. Which of these two might unexpectedly lose what they should naturally win? What should I be doing?
