Purity Tests – No, I’m Not Talking About Republicans
Dems love to carp about Repubs and their purity tests on taxes, social conservatism, articles of faith on everything from religious freedom (so they can be assholes to people not like them), and voter suppression. Most of that carping is done nose-in-the-air about how ignorant conservatives are, and how purity tests ruined the GOP. Then, Dems blindly apply their own intolerant purity tests on their side: Cases in point – Obama should have waited his turn (2008); Sanders wasn’t Democrat enough (2016 and 2020); Biden’s actions over 40 years ago disqualifies him today; Biden’s too old, too frail, sleepy (amplifying the right’s latest personal attack); male Dems who dare to favor a male candidate over all female candidates are “misogynist” (yes, I’ve been accused of that regularly). Now the purity tests are already being applied to Bloomberg – he’s “a fool”, “a tool”, “not a democrat”, on and on and on.
I get it. Dems want the perfect candidate with the perfect file cabinet full of perfect plans (that will never see the light of day). They demand that their chosen candidate pledge to turn the entire system immediately on its head to fix everything the Repubs have done wrong since 1995. AND, all candidates who don’t promise to do that are denigrated as “fools” and “not true Democrats”.
And that intolerance is a formula for LOSING. I watched in disbelief in 2016 as the Dems pushed everyone out and followed the most unpopular Democratic candidate in US history over the cliff because it was “her turn”. I watched as they dismissed all other comers because they weren’t pure enough. Apparently, they’ve learned nothing because here we go again in 2019. The second most popular candidate in Iowa can’t get out of single digits nationally. The most popular candidate in Iowa can demonstrate NO scenario where she can win the electoral college. I know Dems that muse about a Warren/Buttigieg or Buttigieg/Warren ticket, neither of which would get within 50 electoral votes of a tie with Trump.
National elections are certainly about the vision of a future for our country. They are a time for introspection and big thinking. But they are also opportunities for gigantic disasters and averting disasters. We are where we are today because the Dems were stupid in 2016, ignoring all the signs of loss with a weak unpopular candidate. We have an opportunity to avert another gigantic disaster, but only if the Dems stop being stupid and start applying grade school level arithmetic.
It’s a hard truth.
LOL remembering when FiveThirtyEight was the best thing since sliced bread. BTW sliced bread sucks almost as bad as 538 did in 2016. Mike Bloomberg jumping in as if he were some rich boy latter day savior is so yesterday. Yesterday like Mitt Romney or worse, the current pResident IQ4.5. Enough with the Republicons trolling the Democratic elections with aid from Putie’s little bots.
Will it be Harris/Warren or Warren/Harris or some other combination? I don’t know at this juncture. Too much chaff in the field to see clearly. But the media sell on Biden is annoying, while images of Super Mike are simply laughable. Plenty of cabinet and Senate seats to fill; hint, hint Beto, Amy Pete and others.
As for the “purity” tests being ascribed to Democrats; sounds more like repeating the efforts of a Russian troll farm. Let the candidates dance to the issues, not the imaginary tunes being tossed out there by trolling Republicons, lazy media, and Putin’s Pussy Posse for Donnie.
1I’ve been enjoying reading the reports in the WaPo about how the billionaires are panicking. There’s only about 750 of them, you know. Not enough to elect the local dog-catcher. Also interesting is that Warren’s Wealth Tax is proving to be quite popular with the actual voters.
The WaPo fact checker looked at Warren’s numbers to pay for Medicare for All. While there are a lot of assumptions in her plan, the numbers ADD UP!
There are still 3 months before the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Before that, though, is the impeachment. Nobody knows what is going to happen.
2Well said, or to be accurate, well written! From way ‘over here’, that is the most intelligent and perceptive commentary I have read anywhere in ‘Blogdom’.
But, hey, I’m a Brit so what the hell do I know!
3In my opinion – ‘a poor thing, Sir, but mine own’ – that is the shrewdest post I have read on this site.
4I ‘get’ that people want to vote for a sure thing candidate, but they don’t exist. Never have, never will.
And singing the praises of a candidate who hasn’t worked in the Democratic Party, who hasn’t shown he/she believes in the ideals and ethos of the Democratic Party won’t convince me to vote them into office.
We have two major parties, and we need a dividing line between them. Bloomberg is a Republican, not a Democrat. I wouldn’t vote for him even if the only other option were Putin.
5“… even if the only other option were Putin.”
As Vice President to Trump? Or head of the ticket & Ivanka as VP?
6OT:
Well, LtCol Vindeman has been poleaxed from his WH NSC Ukraine desk position, as part of ‘a general restructuring and personnel reshuffle’… yeah, riiighhtt.
Of course Vindeman was clearly vastly overqualified to work in the current maladmin: born in Ukraine, immigrated to the US at 3y/o, fluent in the language[s], subject matter expert, honorable, competent, dedicated and decorated; a total misfit in tRumpianworld.
Now they’ll dredge around in the Rethugian swamplands, and/or Putin’s Kremlin will suggest someone, and we’ll all get another RudyColludy level scumsucker in a sensitive position.
As far as Biden or Bloomberg, and ‘purity tests’ [you’re lecturing -me- about them?], I’ll vote for a damned clump of burrgrass if it’s got a “Dem” stamp on it.
But neither Biden nor Bloomberg have a blind and deaf ‘possum’s chance of crossing that busy highway filled with tRump dumptrucks.
We had better pick a candidate that can outsmart and outfight everything the Rescummies are going to unleash.
Going back to 2016, I reluctantly concluded that HRC would make a good Prez, the best qualified by far, but that she has been so savaged for so long by the Republikans [and would trigger the ‘purists’ assholes] that she would likely lose [and advised y’all of that right here].
7Mark Schlemmer@46
The pendulum is a great analagy.
The twentieth century was a great example.
But a pendulum swings by gravity to align itselph directly below a fixed point. Moving the fixed point moves the range of the swing. What used to be right is now waayyy right. What used to be center is now left. The Mercers, Kochs, Ailes Murdoch and their buddies have bought reality.
And they’re wielding it with terrible effect.
8Rick @ 6: Don’t be absurd, nobody would vote for a female vice president.
Yes, snark, but what else is there to say?
9Clinton may have been a “bad” “unpopular” candidate, but she did get almost 3 million more votes than stump. Seems to me you are trashing a candidate for not passing your test for something.
I generally am quite a fan of yours so please do not assume I am a troll.
10