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.
My only qualification is: “Can this person be absolutely sure to beat Mango Mussolini?”
1Larry from Colorado @ 1,
BINGO! This.
2Every criticism of Warren 2020 applies doubly to Sanders 2016
He woulda lost. Bigly.
And now, having violated my oath not to relitigate the 2016 primaries, I must go do contrition and penance.
3Not that it matters but, before we start engaging in the latest round of the “Democrats are in Disarray!” narrative blitz that’s about to take over cable news, thanks to Bloomberg’s entry, it might be instructive to note that; overall, Democrats’ satisfaction with their 2020 candidates is the highest Gallup has ever recorded this late in a presidential primary. EVER.
Via Gallup, here’s Democratic satisfaction with their nominees by group
Overall: 75% (3 in 4)
18-34: 78%
35-54: 74%
55+: 74%
Liberal: 85%
Moderate: 71%
Conservative: 54%
Billionaires: N/A
4@Deb – That’s great. But satisfaction with ourselves doesn’t count. What counts is electoral votes.
5I don’t believe this. You are completely forgetting how popular Hillary was a Sec. of State and how popular she was as a Senator. She was so successful as a Senator that Al Franken went to her for advice when he first won his seat. Sanders wouldn’t have gotten nearly the votes Hillary did. She ran in all those primaries and caucuses and BEAT HIM. She also got more 3 million more votes than the orange moron.
Elizabeth Warren is NOT Hillary Clinton. But, she was a very successful law professor and Senator–not to mention creating the CFRB. She is the exact opposite of the Orange Moron and wants to tax the wealthy like they used to be taxed before Ronald Reagan came along and blew up the budget and the economy with it. There’s a reason why, they more voters get to know her, the more she rises in the polls. Why is that???????
6Yes, I would agree that no one should apply the purity test. But some people are one issue voters, which by definition is the same thing.
7Also, I would like to correct the 1995 date. I am old enough to remember Reagan, 1981 is when the republicans started doing everything wrong.
As bad as Nixon was, he still did things like create the EPA.
Reagan watered down the 1933 Glass-Steagall bill and broke the back of the unions.
FYI- before Reagan, corporations were not allowed to buy back their own stocks.
@Barb – I don’t disagree that Warren is highly qualified. But the numbers simply don’t support her. She trails Trump in too many swing states. You need to stop looking at primary polls and start looking at election polls in the swing states. Those states will determine the election, and Warren is not the right candidate to win those.
On Hillary, she was also highly qualified; but when she took over the DNC in 2013, FIRED everyone and packed it with her own people, and then built up a huge wall of money to keep everyone else out, she pissed off a lot of people including me. That’s when her popularity plummeted. She was a terrible candidate and we’re now paying for the stupidity of letting her run roughshod over everyone else.
8I’m for Warren. She can beat Trump. I think it’s a little early to say shit like they won’t get within 50 electoral votes of Trump. Where did you get that? I guess you’re pro-biden from this vague rant.
9@Pancho – Insults don’t work with me. I’ve been running scenarios with electoral votes (which are the only votes that count). Unless Warren magically improves where she’s behind and she has displayed no qualities that raise those numbers in specific swing states, she’ll lose to Trump 232 to 285 and that’s being generous. 285 – 232 = 53. OK you got me. It’s 53, not 50.
10It has been said many times in the past that “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” I think there is a lot of truth to that.The Dems seem a lot pickier about what candidate they get enthusiastic about, and Repubs will support anybody at the top so long as they are anointed by Fox news. The issue in my mind for the next few election cycles is how Independents choose the candidates they like? I think Independents still outnumber D’s and R’s nationally.
11Full disclosure, I do not have a horse in this race. I will vote for whomever has a D behind their name. Having said that, I think a little perspective is called for here.
Mike Bloomberg recently said Xi Jinping is “not a dictator” and the Chinese Communist party is “responsive” to its people. He has said lots of things like that, they will all come out when he becomes a presidential candidate. I don’t believe that the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a multi-millionaire for President unless that person has a lengthy track record of extraordinary good works (See FDR).
While I’m certainly not advocating that the party ignore swing states, I think we can all agree that there is a demonstrable need to not blow off the base. Who you might ask is the base? In general, that would be women and minorities, and specifically black women. While we are at it, young people are also pretty darned important because when they are energized and turn out they can actually make a difference (they are also the future). Just out of purely incidental curiosity, do any of us actually think that Bloomberg is going to excite that base?
Having said that, the question becomes who can excite the base and still win in those key swing states?
12So, esteemed Jefe, who were the superior Democratic candidates in 2015-16 whose Presidential ambitions were forestalled by Hillary Clinton’s machinations ?
13El Jefe, you’re harshing my mellow. The first vote hasn’t even been cast in the primaries! I resent being scolded because I want a liberal candidate.
14I just want a candidate that can beat the daylights out of Rump in the 2020 election. But I’m voting blue no matter who.
15I feel that men have had 45 at bats and now I want a woman. Hillary got 3mil more votes than the Current Occupant; if not for voters who stayed home or voted the Green Party in swing states, we would be complaining about Pres. Clinton right now.i want a well educated experienced woman and we have three who are trying!
16Jefe, you hit on an extremely important point when you said the part about “because it was ‘her turn’”. Voters tend not to like a candidate whose campaign attitude seems to say “because it’s my turn.” We have lots of examples over the last several cycles: Hillary ’16, Jeb(!), Romney, McCain, Hillary ’08, Gore, Dole….the last “my turn” candidate to win was George the First IIRC.
Now, who’s the “because it’s my turn” candidate in this race?
17Unfortunately, no Dem will have a chance to beat Drumpf if
18Repugs are permitted to continue their purge of voters, gerrymander districts and accept big money from the NRA.
Add to that Russia’s plans to interfere and Facebook’s puzzling policy on political ads and the odds seem insurmountable.
Can we be British and have our election cycles last only six weeks?
19Um, let’s see… the first primary is when? There won’t be more than 2 dems left in the race by Iowa, if history is any indicator. if both are billionaires, I’m voting for Pat Paulson on a write-in.
20@Grandma – Perfect. Point me to a woman candidate who can beat Trump in Michigan, PA, OH, Wisconsin, and North Carolina and I’m with you. None of those running right now can do that.
21Yes many Dems are judgemental as hell also (comes with being human). So what exactly is a Liberal?
22For starters I call myself a Liberal because I believe in policies using this basic criteria, ‘Is it healthy and safe for the individual? And is it healthy and safe for the community?’, and believe in the Rule of Law, fairness and equality for everyone regardless of color, income, religion, etc.
They said Trump couldn’t win, too. Lots of people voted for Hillary over Bernie because “Bernie couldn’t win in the general election.”
Warren’s support has been building steadily. Perhaps it’s a bit early to forecast doom.
23@ El Jefe. AT this point in time, who does your ‘grade school arithmetic’ indicate would win over Trump? Please provide enough information about your analysis so that I can re-create it and understand it. BTW, I am genuinely curious.
I would ask you to post the current analysis from your model in January, February, March, May, etc. I like to see the results of a model over time and variations on data input.
I can be influenced by the results of a solid model.
Like you, I want to see the current administration (not only Trump but his minions) removed from positions of power.
24I had no problem with Hillary as a candidate. If she were running today I would vote for her. She was the most knowledgeable one hands down.
I do have problems with people who are unaffiliated latching onto the democratic party because they don’t have the support and/or desire to get on the ballots of 50 states as an 3rd party candidate. This is all about ballot access. Screw em. I like people who pay their dues.
IMO, no democrat can win the electoral college. The republicans have spent years getting control of state houses. The democrats were stomping pissants while the elephants ran wild. They have been at it since i almost joined the JBS back in 66. Now, the JBS is in charge. Those guys are not quitters. And before Trump is through, they will have all the judges. It doesn’t matter who the Republicans run, they will win the EC.And it will be another 50 years until sanity is restored.
25El Jefe, you *still* don’t get it. Choosing between abject evil (by voting (R) ) and lesser evil (Clinton/Neocon wing (D) ) is _STILL_ voting in favour of evil.
Look at the sh!t the DCCC and DSCC keeps interfering in favour of in the primaries!
Until it stops, (D) voters will stay home, hunker down, and try to do good in the face of evil (abject _or_ lesser).
26First, I’m a life-long liberal Democrat, a granddaughter of a real- life Norma Rae, who, with only an 8th-grade education, rose to become a 30-year union regional organizer for the ILGWU, marshalling her “girls” to help elect Paul Simon and Birch Bayh. She took me to see a young Senator John Kennedy so that I could always say I shook the hand of a future POTUS.
Like RFK, I choose to see things as they could be and ask “why not?” In my own life, I was able to accomplish things politically that most in my community thought impossible because it had eluded us for generations. So, I know the impossible is only impossible until someone comes along and achieves it.
I agree that the Dem’s “purity” calculations are pure bullshit. As long as nominees come from the human race, we will never have a “perfect” candidate because we all have faults, they’re built into our genes. But Dems often throw away the good in search of the perfect. I haven’t picked a horse in this race yet, but I have eliminated several. With all due respect, El Jefe, I don’t think you give the voters, and the changing demographics enough credit.
I think young people will be coming out in droves, voting on the climate crisis they’re inheriting, gun legislation and student debt. They are fierce and motivated, God bless them.
I think our best shot with any candidate is to paint (rightfully) the GOP with their corruption — as the party of caging children, strong-arming foreign governments to investigate US citizens to further their domestic electoral goals, stripping women of the right to choose what happens to their own bodies, collusion with our sworn enemies and using their elective offices for personal enrichment.
I’m tired of the assessment that younger candidates should “wait their turn” when even the most inexperienced candidates we’ve got would be better than Trumplethinskin, to whom the GOP has pledged undying fealty. I believe the tax rates on the uber-rich should be closer to what they were before St. Reagan broke the budget and set a precedent for every damn Republican that followed. I also believe that marijuana should be legalized nationally and taxed, just like alcohol. I don’t think any Democrat POTUS will get anything done unless and until we take back the Senate and McTurtle is sent home to cower in his broken shell as the pox on democracy that he is.
Biden is wrong thinking the GOP will have a come to Jesus moment and suddenly embrace bipartisanship. The House is holding impeachment hearings and the Republicans on those committees prefer publicity stunts over participation. They don’t want the Republican voters to know what 45 has done. A majority of Republicans polled indicated they think trying to withhold military aid to a foreign government until they investigate an American citizen is wrong and possibly illegal. These FauxNews Republicans do not know what harm 45 has done because of their news source but all that may change with televised hearings. While I know most Reptillicons will not be swayed, independent voters can be.
The world is changing but Joe thinks we want to go back to the halcyon days of Obama. While those days were better, they did not reach far enough. They were definitely days of achieving the politically possible, but I don’t think they reached high enough.
OK, Boomer me all you want, but that’s where this getting-older-much-too-fast white woman stands thus far in the battle for my vote.
27I personally beleive in following the facts and looking towards new election while learning from past while not letting locked old patterns make me ignore new realities.
28That being said the idea that the d’ win elections with thuglican lites has been proven false.
In the 2018 cycle Rachel Bitecofer nailed it. In her analysis she showed that it was bold and new D’s who got voters who had been sitting on the sidelines into the booth that gave the D’s their victory.
The idea that a D can appeal to thuglicans by trying to become “one of them” loses votes from those who do not perceive any one in the election speaking and addressing their issues while, if history has taught us anything, completely failing on peeling off any thuglican voters. It was motivaiting those voters that gave us “the squad” and turned Virginia blue. Not the same old tired and loseing formula of appeaseing thuglicans because thats how the d’s lost in the past.
It does not matter who the D’s nominaite, even if they decided to nominiate romney, they will be painted as a wild eyed lunatic. Billions can’t stop stupidity. Look at how they have made George Soros as the enemy of all while carictureizing demented donnie as a man of the people.
Not to mention nominiateing people based upon polls from a year out would have eliminating Clinton and Obama based upon the same surrender theory that the D’s can only win by becoming thuglicans. That d’s must conform their nominaitations based upon fear of the thuglicans. That is how Gore ( with Liarman the epitome of a thuglicrat), Kerry, and to a certain degree, Hillary lost.
So no I do not accept a candinate who has bounced back and forth between parties as a legitimate contender. An individual who gave a full throated, and huge donations, to the twit in 04 as a democratic nominee.
I seriously question math based upon old and out of date assumptions and failed theory’s of the past.
Again, the Chief has undertaken up the curmudgeon’s tool, apostosy. The Chief is correct and morally right. Dem’s withhold support until every focus group is satisfied. This gets our heads beaten in. Except for Sec. Clinton, I agree with everything ‘el Jefe’ has to say. Sec Clinton did everything she needed to do to win … except work the ‘fly-over-states’. This was bad advice from her selected advisers. The greatest insult within the party is to accuse one of ” … you’re doing this only to get elected.” ‘Publicans do this regularly. Get elected. As long as republi-cons & -can’ts are elected and re-elected we will pay the bills and they will get the free lunch. If, and only if, Democrats are in office will change for the betterment of society occur. Perfection in the choice of nominees is the hand maiden of the statuss quo
29@Crone: I actually have more optimism than you do about Dems making gains in state houses in 2020. The reason is Trump. One woman put it succinctly in that she stated that she had never been involved in politics and never voted because “it always worked out OK”. Then Dolt 45 got elected and she became instantly active. Lotsa women ran (and a lot of them won!) in 2018 and 2017 for everything from school boards, to city and county councils and, most importantly, to state houses.
Three years ago, 920 women expressed interest in Emily’s List training program for candidates. After the Orange Moron was elected, 45,000 women expressed interest. That’s what gives me hope–not just in 2020, but well into the future.
30@Jason – Not sure what you’re saying I “still don’t get”. I happen to agree with your comment.
31Mel, it’s not that hard. Look at the multiple state polls on Real Clear Politics comparing the head to heads in the swing states. You can then run different scenarios on 270 to Win. What that says is that almost no scenario give Warren the win on electoral votes. Even if you give her PA, she still loses the general. I ignore primary polls because they’re meaningless in head to head matchups against Trump.
32The divisions in the party are only partially self-inflicted. The Russian/GRU active disinformation measures that gave us Trump and Trumpism have never been suspended, have in fact only intensified prior to the 2020 election, and fekking with the Democrats is still a top priority. Having so large a field makes for more and smaller splinters. I don’t pretend to have a solution or a better idea for nominating candidates, but I will say you can’t fight back until you can admit you’ve been hit. Maybe start there.
The Cold War never really ended, and Putin is winning it.
33Here’s an interesting read:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/billionaires-democratic-primary-bill-gates-mike-bloomberg_n_5dc4f07fe4b00927b2308d5d
34I wouldn’t necessarily give Real Clear Politics much credibility:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/realclear-media-has-a-secret-facebook-page-filled-with-far-right-memes
35@Barb – That’s really interesting, but has nothing to do with arithmetic. Real Clear Politics reports polls, then gives the average math of those polls. Those are the numbers I use and I’ve checked their math; it’s correct. I don’t read their commentary. Arithmetic is straightforward when you ignore the bias.
36Totally off topic.
37Recently I’ve suggested that Jim Jordan would be a strong contender for Trump’s successor.
I didn’t remember that he was the guy ensnared in the sexual abuse scandal.
Apparently repugnantcan leadership forgot about it too when they put him on the lead committee on impeachment right before it’s gonna be PUBLICLY TELEVISED.
Oh Ef Jefe, honey, I haven’t read such a load of silliness in, well, since forever. Anyway…since you’re Texan, I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t hardly know anything about Democrats, so I’ll fill you in. Of course Senator Warren is going to figure everything out (because that’s what she does), she’s going to get all the woman on board behind her (because we are all of us really fed up), and we’re going to sweep that mess out of the White House like every woman gets stuck cleaning up. You damn well better believe every Democrat in this nation worth their D is going to vote for the candidate, whoever that is, I’m even seeing lawn signs about it. So let’s have a nice bourbon and chill out a bit, there’s a long trip ahead of us.
38I’m going to follow Maddow’s advice: vote in the primaries with my heart, vote in the General with my head.
39(Almost) Any Functioning Adult vs Trump 2020.
Anybody “too pure” to vote for “the lesser of two evils” helps to ensure the election of the greater evil.
so.much.to.unpack.here. so little time to do so. let me just say one thing: E MAILZ!
as well, let me invite you, el jefe, to bring this bar of soap to the knife fight at lawyersgunsmoney.com, just to see how you fare with this, ahem, “argument” for, actually, I’m not exactly certain, because you never really say. but anyway, do hop aboard that train with us. I think you, and everyone here, will be enlightened and entertained. don’t let Loomis bother you, he hates everything.
I will vote for whoever is the D nominee, but most of that crowded stage will be gone, by the time the primaries/caucuses begin in the spring.
40@ElJefe 32. Thanks. i will look into your analysis process.
Since I asked for the name your analysis produced as one who could beat Trump but you posted a name that would not be successful against Trump, am I to assume that your analytical technique is useful for predicting losers but not producing a potential Victor?
Also you indicated that there are exclusion criteria for data fed into your model. Can you provide the basis for which data sets you choose to exclude any why.
41El Jefe, please, just no. Do not ask us to behave like Republicons voting just because someone has the requisite letter behind their name. Yes, anyone but IQ4.5 in 2020. However, there are a number of decent Democrats who can beat the orange foolius.
You speak of electoral arithmetic, so how well did that work out for you in 2016? Forget the polls which seem to ask all the wrong questions of all the wrong people. And, lordy spare us the media trolling for Uncle Joe or whichever corporate dem sets their .01% hearts aflutter.
42I agree with you except for one thing. “The most unpopular Democratic candidate in US history” won by three million votes. Trashing Hillary detracts from your very valid premise.
43Not willing to vote for Republican Lite for any reason, not in 2020, not ever.
Why bother impeaching Fat Donnie, then putting another republican billionaire into office right after him?
441] The most important qualification I’m looking for is: can this person beat Dumpster Donnie?
2] That said, I’d prefer we not have another business person whose primary goal is maintaining the income gap in the country.
It seems pretty obvious from here, that maintaining the status quo simply won’t work this time around.
3] If Bloomberg doesn’t realize he just gave the biggest, wettest kiss in the world to Warren and Sanders, how will he manage the nuances of the office he’s running for?
And meanwhile, Biden would love to give him a swift kick.
And just one last thing:
452020 depends, more than anything else, on turnout. Nothing will turn off enthusiasm faster than a status-quo candidate getting the nod. Just sayin.
El Jefe,
46Sadly, I believe you are correct but not perhaps for the reasons you present. My deep fear of a Warren or Sanders candidacy is that America is essentially a center politic country. The pendulum swings left and right in fairly broad strokes. The ideas Warren and Sanders have are too radical a swing so fast after this total disaster of Trumpism. That is why I am hopeful that
either Biden snaps out of his malaise, Butigeig (?) disowns his support of Charter Schools or Amy Klobachar (?) picks up a surprise win. This country will need a time to heal from Trump. We cannot simply launch into dramatic new changes in health care, Medicare, etc. Sorry about my spelling.
I found this in an rticle about Keynesian economics (How and why economics forgot Keynes’ warnings on panics) – it seemed relevant here:
47Jefe: I think you are saying that the polls show every single D candidate currently in the race will lose to trump in the crucial swing states so we should support Blomberg. But where are the polls showing a head to head matchup between Bloomberg and trump? I don’t think there are any. So how do you know Bloomberg would prevail?
You say Bloomberg would get the support of business types and mainstream D’s. I agree with you on both of those if by mainstream D’s you mean centrist white people. I think he’s going to have problems getting support from the left because of his close association with Wall Street. And he could have some real problems getting support from minorities due to his stop and frisk policies as mayor of New York. Plus he kinda comes across as just another generic, replacement level rich white guy, which I could see hurting him with young people. So in the absence of polls showing otherwise I question whether he would generate any enthusiasm in the general election among these key constituencies. Minorities and young people tend to be more victimized by voter suppression so we really need them to be motivated to overcome that and I don’t see it happening with Bloomberg. So where are the numbers showing Bloomberg would win? Just looking at it qualitatively I don’t see it.
48Jefe: one other point I forgot above. Bloomberg has also spoken out about cutting Medicare and Social Security. So older people are yet another group who will be strongly opposed to him. Once you carve out all the various sub groups who have reason to be unenthused or outright opposed to Bloomberg I don’t think you have enough people left to carry him to victory in the general election.
49With all I’ve read about Bloomberg, I recall him stating back in March, that he was not going to run for election. He was also a Republican before. Why the sudden decision to run at this point? What are his real intentions? Am I being too suspicious to question if Bloomberg’s sudden entry into the election was influenced by someone or some group to add chaos in the Democrat candidate?
50