Time For “A New Generation Of Leadership” For Democrats Running For The Presidency

The Democratic Party needs “new blood” running for President in 2020, just as it had in John F. Kennedy in 1960; Jimmy Carter in 1976; Bill Clinton in 1992; and Barack Obama in 2008.

This is not the time for “old” leadership, meaning another run for the White House by Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Anyone reading this blog knows of my great admiration for Biden, but at age 78 in 2020, it is too late, in the author’s opinion, for him to be a serious alternative. And as much as Hillary Clinton has an exceptional background, having run for President twice, and being still seen by many as a divisive figure, and being 73 in 2020, it is proper to say that her time has passed.

It is also NOT the time for Bernie Sanders, who despite his strong support, is not really a cooperative member of the Democratic Party, not having been a member until he decided to run for President, and now backing away again from membership in the party. His age in 2020, 79, also makes him far from a good choice for such a demanding job.

What about Elizabeth Warren? She will be 71 in 2020 and is an inspiring person, but the problem of misogyny that Hillary Clinton faced, which was a factor in her defeat, argues against Warren, as she has been cast in a negative light by many, for her vehement and outspoken manner. This blogger admires her, but finds it hard to believe she could win in the 2020 Presidential race.

So basically, what we need is someone not thought about before, and there are a multitude of candidates one can think of to consider for 2020.

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, (62 in 2020) )Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential running mate, is one, as is his fellow Virginian, Senator Mark Warner (65 in 2020). But both are seen by many as too moderate centrist, not appealing to the Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016.

There is Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, (68 in 2020), who was thought of as an alternative running mate for Clinton, and who might have helped keep the white working class in Ohio and elsewhere for the Democrats in 2016.

There is also Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who would be 47 in 2020, and comes across as very appealing in appearance and views on the issues.

Then, there is Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who would be 51 in 2020, but is seen as too centrist by many, and being African American, after the racism so evident during the term of Barack Obama, one wonders if that would be a problem.

And there are also Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (60 in 2020)and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (54 in 2020), but being females might be a negative factor, sad to say.

Additionally, there is Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon (64 in 2020), the only Democrat to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Less likely possibilities include Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (57 in 2020); Senator Al Franken of Minnesota (69 in 2020); Senator Kamala Harris of California (56 in 2020); and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island (65 in 2020).

Other than the US Senate, the only possible gubernatorial Presidential possibilities that seem reasonable are New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (62 in 2020), and California Lieutenant Governor and likely next Governor Gavin Newsom (53 in 2020), former Mayor of San Francisco.

Trying to figure out this early who might indeed run is really difficult, but one can assume that a good number of these 18 possibilities will actually enter the Presidential race.

First thoughts on this would be that Chris Murphy, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom would have the best chance, with all likely to be candidates. All are young enough, and have a record of accomplishment worthy of consideration. But also, it is likely that Mark Warner, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren will also announce for President, and others might as well.

Of course, someone not yet thought of, who might be elected to the governorship or the Senate in 2018, might be added to the list.

And, one cannot eliminate someone from outside the political system, likely a businessman or media or entertainment star, could enter the race, and one cannot project against such a person having a real chance to be the Democratic Presidential nominee.

One must recall that John F. Kennedy had the issue of Catholicism that was a problem; Jimmy Carter the Southern issue and basically unknown nationally; Bill Clinton having the ethics and morality issue; and Barack Obama having the racial problem.

No one would have predicted three years before their elections that any of them would have been the nominee of the party, let alone the next Presidency of the United States!

19 comments on “Time For “A New Generation Of Leadership” For Democrats Running For The Presidency

  1. D April 27, 2017 10:45 am

    What the Democratic Party needs is an identity, an agenda, and to have a purpose for existing in supposedly serving the people of this nation.

    Right now, the Democratic Party is one for social liberals preferring policies which include support for non-heterosexuals. But, the Democratic Party is in bed with the Republican Party for military intervention, for wars, and they’re in bed with Wall Street. And their policies on economics put Wall Street, put corporations, above people.

    People have awakened.

    The Democratic Party isn’t need of “new blood,” exactly, but a new vision that is a new way of operating going forward.

    This means the corporatists, the Bill Clintons and Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of the party, are destructive to the party. They have basically sold out the party to the donor class.

    The donor class doesn’t care one bit about income inequality. They don’t want any economic policies which do not put them first.

    What Bernie Sanders represents is a vision for the party that is, once again, a party which prioritizes the needs of the people, the have-nots, over the plutocrats, the haves.

    That’s the bottom line of what is wrong with the current Democratic Party. They figure, with their “Big Tent,” they can spout nice speeches about working toward improving people’s lives—inspired-sounding platitudes—but, when they have power (like with the presidency of Obama), they don’t truly advance the nation to where it needs to go on policies like climate change (which the Democratic Party says is important while approving more oil drilling; approving fracking). Under current operations, the Democratic Party establishment figures they can always get away with talking the talk but not having to actually walk it. To not have to deliver on aggressive, progressive domestic policies.

    We’re in a period of realignment. We can discuss political realignments. We can discuss party realignments. But, what is realigning is life in the United States.

    Not a single one of the Democrats mentioned is worthy of being the next president of the United States specifically from this political party. (Bernie Sanders returned to independent. I understand and do not blame him one bit as more people self-identify as independent than Republican or Democrat.) Being president means being a leader. A real leader. A driven one. A controversial one. One who moves the country.

    There is only one well-known Democrat currently in office who is has the great potential.

    I wouldn’t predict a Democratic Party pickup of the presidency to happen in 2020. I think this corruption so entrenched in this Democratic Party will serve to re-elect President Donald Trump, or make sure the presidency is retained by the Republican Party, in 2020. But, come 2024, the Democrats should be able to win back the White House. (If not…the presidency has become realigned for the Republican Party effective with Election 2016.) And the Democrats are going to do it with someone who seems a risky choice—just as that has been the case with all eventual candidates who were nominated and won general-election, party pickups of the presidency of the United States since, at the least, the early period of television.

    Right now that current Democratic Party officeholder, effective April 27, 2017, who can win is Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii. Gabbard is in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 2nd Congressional District of Hawaii. And Gabbard, who turned 36 on April 12, will be 43 years old in 2024. She has an impressive background. And she is where the Democratic Party as a whole needs to be on key policies. Gabbard is not a warmonger. She is not irresponsible. (She stepped down from the DNC when she realized she had a preference for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton while then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to be driven out just after the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC e-mails.) And Gabbard has political skills and instincts which make her independent enough, an individual, by comparison to the rest of the pack of the Democratic Party who, frankly, are not leaders but followers. (Her attackers, like policy adviser Neera Tanden and ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, have exposed themselves as out of touch, desperate political hacks. They are strong examples why this party needs a thorough cleaning of its house.)

    This, by the way, is not some official prediction; certainly not this far in advance. This is my addressing the current state of the Democratic Party. This is my response to some of the ideas, the names, coming from Ronald. (I do not feel the need to go over each name with one-by-one explanations why I think each has no feasibly shot. And why they are not worthy. Bottom line: They’re not leaders and/or not of the leadership caliber needed from this Democratic Party.) I think it is good to discuss potential and/or necessary direction.

  2. Ronald April 27, 2017 12:41 pm

    D, I find your comment intriguing.

    To believe that Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii will be a Presidential possibility is quite a stretch, as no Congressman has been nominated since James A. Garfield in 1880.

    She is technically eligible, as she was born in the territory of American Samoa, but that would become an issue, one can be sure, and the fact that she is a practicing Hindu would not be a likely plus either.

    I am surprised that you do not find some of my list of potential candidates in 2020 to be something you can be supportive of, including Sherrod Brown, Chris Murphy, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Merkley, Kamala Harris, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Gavin Newsom. And you also dismiss Elizabeth Warren?

    Would you mind indicating your reasons for opposition to at least the eight I have just listed, in specific detail, when you have time, D?

    We would all appreciate it!

  3. Pragmatic Progressive April 27, 2017 4:49 pm

    There is no economic populism without abortion rights and civil rights. No one can have economic justice if he or she doesn’t have fundamental rights. We must seek both social and economic justice in any progressive movement.


  4. Rational Lefty April 27, 2017 4:59 pm

    A political platform that is willing to abandon the rights of women, people of color, LBGTQ people, etc. in favor of a narrow construction of economic justice is not my kind of leftism.

  5. Southern Liberal April 27, 2017 5:50 pm


    What Unites and Divides Democrats
    by Nancy LeTourneau
    April 27, 2017 2:07 PM

    Markos Moulitsas has written an interesting response to all the insider chatter about the divisions in the Democratic Party. The title tells you something about where he’s going with it, “The progressive wing of the party won. Now we’re fighting over privilege.” He starts out by saying that progressives have won the battle over economic issues and specifically notes the consensus that has developed on things like minimum wage, social security and income inequality.

    I would suggest that is only the beginning of where Democrats agree. Because the topic of income inequality covers a whole range of issues on everything from taxes to day care, it includes many of the issues Democrats embrace. But there is also a consensus on the need to address things like campaign finance reform and getting to universal health care.

    It is when we get beyond the big goals and start talking about specific processes and policies that Democrats tend to disagree. But that is as it should be. People need to debate those differences and hash things out. What is unacceptable is any attempt to dismiss people as not “real Democrats” if they don’t agree. Even worse are the attacks on either side’s moral principles based on a disagreements over specifics. Rhetoric that implies that anyone’s views are based on complicity or simply the blind allegiance of so-called “bots” is not only divisive, it is an attempt to shut down opposing views and end the conversation. That is something the other side does and should be roundly rejected by liberals.

    From there Markos discusses where he sees the current divide.

    The issues that suddenly divide us? Apparently whether we, as a party, will be unyielding in a woman’s right to choose. Taking a page out of the right’s playbook, Jane Sanders called fighting for that right “political correctness.” I see it as core and just as central to who we are as a party as the bullet points above. We’re apparently arguing over whether economic equality would keep immigrant families from being torn apart by immigration authorities (it wouldn’t), or keep African Americans from being shot in the streets and killed in jail cells (it wouldn’t), or keep Donald Trump from grabbing a woman’s pussy (it hasn’t).

    It is interesting to me that these are sometimes referred to as “cultural issues.” But if you are a woman whose economic survival is threatened by a pregnancy, I’m sure that the right to chose can’t simply be relegated to a cultural phenomenon. Same would be true if your family’s survival depends of what an ICE officer decides to do with his time, or if you are a black man in the middle of getting pulled over by a police officer. In all of those instances, these are life and death matters. That is why women and people of color react so strongly to being told that speaking up about them is divisive. It is actually the other sides trampling of their lives that is divisive. We need to be clear about that.

    A lot of this discussion was reignited when Bernie Sanders chose to endorse a Democratic candidate who was openly anti-choice. I tend to think about that this way: would I vote for an anti-choice Democrat if the only alternative was the mini-me Trump that is my current representative? You betcha I would! That is what politics is often about in a two-party system.

    On the other hand, this morning I read an article from Politico about why the Christian right is so thrilled with Donald Trump’s presidency and have become the one constituency he can rely on. It is all based on what we call “cultural issues” – and that is overwhelmingly about the steps this president has taken (and promised to take) to strip women of their right to chose. So let’s be honest…these are the battles we face right now. Any backing off from fighting them will destroy decades of progress that our predecessors fought for so valiantly.

    The challenge Democrats have always faced can be summed up with questions like this:

    Are men prepared to fight for a woman’s right to chose?
    Are white people prepared to fight against racism?
    Are citizens prepared to fight for those who are undocumented?
    Are white collar workers prepared to fight for unions?
    Are the wealthy prepared to fight for the middle class?
    Are those who have good health insurance through their employer prepared to fight for those who don’t?
    Are members of the upper and middle class prepared to fight for those in poverty?
    Are the middle-aged prepared to fight for seniors?
    Are seniors prepared to fight for young people?

    I could go on, but perhaps you get the point.

    Whenever the answer to one of those questions is “no,” or when the message is sent either directly or indirectly that “my issue is more important than yours,” the divide widens. That is what makes the challenge more difficult for Democrats than Republicans. We can’t afford to play a zero-sum game. We have to care about people who aren’t like us because that is the definition of what “liberal” means.

    Marcos ends his piece with a powerful quote from Australian Aboriginal activist Lilla Watson.

    If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time.

    But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.

    The over-arching goal of liberalism is that “your liberation is bound up with mine.” That is what it means to form a coalition. That was Bernice Johnson Reagon’s message way back in 1981 and it is what Rev. William Barber is talking about when it comes to “fusion politics.” It is the only path forward for Democrats.

  6. Princess Leia April 27, 2017 5:58 pm

    Thanks for bringing over that article, Southern Liberal. Nails it exactly!

  7. Rational Lefty April 27, 2017 6:42 pm

    I second the question the Professor asked. Why are you opposed to the people the Professor listed, D?

  8. Rational Lefty April 27, 2017 7:02 pm

    Our local political blog posted this in regards to Tom Perriello being the right person for Governor in the age of Trump.


    Tom Perriello for Governor: the Right Man for Virginia in the Age of Trump
    By kindler – April 26, 2017

    Last November’s election was, for Democrats, a slap in the face. The Virginia governor’s race represents one of our first major electoral opportunities to respond. How we do so matters – for Virginia, and for the message it sends to the country.

    Two capable, serious, likeable Democrats are running for this office, and I will do all I can to help elect whichever one is nominated. But I’m declaring my support today for the one who I think provides the more coherent and inspiring progressive vision – and that is Tom Perriello.

    We face a unique moment today, as Trump’s unbridled corruption & contempt for the American people has aroused progressives to a level of fury & motivation we haven’t seen in decades. In the words of Rahm Emanuel, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste” – which right now means using the powerful anger on the left to elect the strongest and most determined progressives we can find.

    Democrats in the current environment have three critical tasks to achieve:

    Fiercely & effectively countering the reactionary Republican tide;
    Healing the Clinton/Sanders rift that continues to hold us back;
    Articulating & advancing a powerful progressive counter-vision.

    I believe that Tom Perriello is better equipped than Ralph Northam to accomplish all three of these goals in the Virginia governor’s race. Here’s why:

    Countering the Trumped GOP

    As my fellow BV blogger Andy Schmookler put it recently:

    Up until Tom Perriello had entered the race and had clearly struck a chord with many voters with his impassioned messages about the danger posed by Trump, to the best of my knowledge Northam did not act as if the election of Trump was a potentially catastrophic development threatening the integrity of America.

    In a nutshell, Ralph has mostly played it safe, running a traditional, dull Democratic campaign – lining up endorsements, playing to key constituencies with targeted talking points, etc. But this is not what the present moment requires.

    Progressives want to know that the all-out Republican assault on American values – from conspiring with Putin to steal an election to conspiring to steal a Supreme Court seat, from encouraging an explosion of unbridled racism to laying the groundwork to destroy EPA, State Department and so much more – will be met with fierce, unbending resistance. While our leaders must be constructive, thoughtful and strategic, they also should be angry – because quite honestly, in the present environment, how can you not be?

    In his excellent introductory video, Tom balances a positive and uplifting message about the power of Virginian and American values with a call to fight against the forces of hate and corruption that threaten them. “I’m Tom Perriello and I’m running for governor because I choose to fight.”

    He praises Virginia for forging “a firewall against hate” last November and implores listeners to join him in standing up against “[p]oliticians from Washington to Richmond [who] write their own self-serving rules and seem committed to dividing and distracting us while they rig the system against the middle class.”

    We need just such a call to action. Tom understands this leadership opportunity and is well suited to deliver on it.

    Bridging the Hillary-Bernie Divide

    If you’re thinking that Tom sometimes sounds a bit like Bernie Sanders – in line with Bernie’s endorsement of him –well, let’s talk about that.

    One of the clear lessons of the last election is that progressives risk losing it all when we don’t unite. Now is the time for Hillary and Bernie supporters to stop bickering and join hands to defeat the right wing clowns demolishing our government and ripping apart our social fabric. This does not mean that we paper over real differences, but that we keep sitting down and ironing them out – and, at the end of the day, stick together even when we don’t agree 100%.

    I strongly supported Hillary while admiring much about Bernie – he, like Trump, understands the power of clear, bold, concrete messages that don’t sound like political business as usual. His one inexcusable sin, in my opinion, is his lack of loyalty to the party he’s been attempting to lead. Tom is bringing Bernie’s progressive fire to the governor’s race, while also making clear that he is a proud Democrat who will support the party’s values as a member of our team – as effective leadership requires.

    I believe that Tom is doing a masterful job of bridging the gap between these two poles of the party. In addition to Bernie, he’s received endorsements from Elizabeth Warren and such Democratic party stalwarts as John Podesta and a whopping 30 former aides to President Obama, including such luminaries as David Plouffe.

    Tom skillfully rebuts journalists who try to frame the Virginia race as a replay of Sanders vs. Clinton, e.g., telling Chris Hayes that both ran historic campaigns of which he hopes to be worthy.

    That said, his run is a challenge to the Virginia Democratic establishment, which had already thrown its weight behind Ralph and is not doing much to welcome Tom right now. As April Moore has pointed out, this is partly a matter of timing – most Virginia Dems had already lined up to back Ralph before Tom’s surprise announcement, and it would be awkward for them to pull out now.

    But it also partly a matter of the old-line party routine of: we chose our boy, he’s paid his dues, we cleared the field for him – and we’ll kneecap you if you get in the way. That attitude is quite clear in the foul-mouthed comments by the petty tyrant who rules over Virginia Senate Democrats, Dick Saslaw, in this Politico piece.

    Dick Saslaw’s techniques — e.g., taking money from predatory lenders in exchange for continuing to let them rip off poor Virginians and taking cash from Dominion Power in exchange for voting to exempt them from years of state audits – represent precisely the type of corrupt politics Democrats need to leave behind, not embrace. Tom, by contrast, refuses to take contributions from regulated public utilities like Dominion, and has shown he is willing to stand up to these Commonwealth political kingmakers.

    It is past time for Virginia Democrats to replace the ugly, dirty politics of dinosaurs like Saslaw with a new generation of reformers like Perriello.

    Providing a Clear Progressive Message & Vision

    Finally, Tom is simply articulating a powerful, coherent progressive vision more effectively than Ralph. Again, I will be delighted to fight for Ralph is he is the nominee. His political vision has developed out of his experiences as a pediatric neurologist, and he manages to explain his stances on everything from Medicaid to marijuana to reproductive rights and guns based on those experiences, as in the speech shown here and here.

    This is a valuable and interesting perspective, and yet it lacks the urgency and breadth we need to confront the right wing assault on American values and institutions at every level. Tom, by contrast, grounds his politics in “the Virginia values I grew up with, of decency and honor, love of neighbor, and an inclusive economy that leaves no one behind,” leading him to live “a purpose driven life spent fighting corruption and demanding that those in power give the people a fair shot.”

    As he summarizes his vision at the GMU rally with Bernie,

    Resistance is not enough. We must continue standing for a positive vision of inclusive economic growth that leaves no race, no region and no family behind in Virginia. We can actually build a more fair economy.

    His policies flow directly out of this vision, including a living wage, access to community colleges, paid family leave, universal pre-K and a clean energy economy. But it’s important to recognize that Tom has been talking about this agenda for a long, long time. The following is from a profile Time did of him seven years ago:

    Politicians always talk about the middle class, but…[f]or all the rhetoric, we…are trending toward an economy that looks like Central America in the ’80s where 10 percent of the people make all the money and pay all the taxes and that’s not really fair for the 10 percent or the 90 percent.

    And this brings me to the silliest aspect of the campaign to date – the suggestion that Tom is somehow not a real progressive, whereas Ralph is. The obvious story, if you look closely, is this: Ralph came from a more or less conservative (or as he puts it, “apolitical”) background – from studying at the ultra-traditionalist Virginia Military Institute to voting for George W. Bush twice – but has, late in life, found his calling as a champion of Democratic values – while Tom, coming from a progressive background, had as a Congressman to tailor his votes on a few issues to preserve any chance of re-election in a conservative House district that he won the first time by little more than 700 votes. (If the idea of a politician gearing some of his votes to match his constituency gives you the vapors, well then, find me an example of a Democrat in a red or purple district who hasn’t ever had to do so. That, like it or not, is how politics works.)

    You just have to take a look at the countless profiles of Tom as a courageous progressive at the time he was fighting for his political life in the Fifth District to realize the nonsense of pretending he was anything else. Like Time calling him “an unapologetic progressive”; E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post calling him “a progressive who fashions an intelligent populism”; The New Yorker reporting:

    Perriello talks about the benefits of health-care reform and stimulus money for people in his district. He has made green energy and the jobs it can create the center of his message. He puts himself on the side of the small entrepreneur, the local innovator, against big oil and big banks. He has the authentic populist voice and anger that Obama lacks.

    And look at Congressman Henry Waxman’s recent endorsement, where he praises Tom for his support the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, saying “Tom is the kind of elected official who can bring back people who have been disillusioned in the past, and want to be energized and inspired about the future.”

    Could Tom the sneaky right-wing extremist somehow have hoodwinked all of these observers? I don’t think so. His career has weaved a trail from working to bring peace and justice to places as far flung as Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Congo, to showing Virginia Democrats how to win and lead in a conservative area like the 5th District, to directing a strategic planning process at the State Department and playing key roles at the Center for American Progress.

    In all of these endeavors, he has followed what he has called “conviction politics”, reminding me a bit of two other Democrats who have followed their consciences to help people in different parts of the country and the world. He is, in my opinion, a Democrat in the thoughtful progressive mode of Barack Obama and Tim Kaine. And that’s just what we need in the Virginia governor’s office at this unique and perilous moment.

  9. D April 27, 2017 10:05 pm

    Ronald writes, “I am surprised that you do not find some of my list of potential candidates in 2020 to be something you can be supportive of, including Sherrod Brown, Chris Murphy, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Merkley, Kamala Harris, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Gavin Newsom. And you also dismiss Elizabeth Warren? Would you mind indicating your reasons for opposition to at least the eight I have just listed, in specific detail, when you have time, D?”

    It’s not “opposition,” entirely, but it is me letting you know what I am observing.

    I’m feeling very confident that the Democrats, who are divided, will not flip the presidency with Election 2020. The pattern is there. A presidential election year which flips the White House party does not often flip back with the very next election cycle. There were more examples of it during the 1800s. But, in the 20th century, only one such occurrence were the consecutive 1976 Democratic and 1980 Republican pickup years with unseating Republican Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter. So, I’m thinking ahead to 2024. To age everyone seven years, for the sake of a discussion, makes sense if you want to consider demographics with each individual with respect for age. No less, I anticipate that Election 2020, for a losing Democratic “challenger,” will likely be a sacrificial lamb (and another neoliberal, establishment-approved figure from the Hillary Clinton wing of the party; perhaps Democrats should really blow up their party and re-nominate Hillary Clinton and some suggested Republicans do for 2012 with Sarah Palin!). This may be a nominee who loses respectfully electorally—like a 1996 Bob Dole, a 2004 John Kerry, a 2012 Mitt Romney—and who can muster an electoral-vote score of 100 (but more close to 200).

    I also wrote, “Being president means being a leader. A real leader. A driven one. A controversial one. One who moves the country.”

    None of those politicians have it.

    When you consider the endorsements for Hillary Clinton, for the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, that were nearly (or felt entirely) the political establishment…it’s like no one can take down one’s own political party like a Clinton. (Colin Powell, on Hillary Clinton: “Everything [Hillary Clinton] touches she kind of screws up with hubris.” http://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/ . )

    I won’t go over all eight of the individual politicians; but, here are five:

    • Massachusetts’s Elizabeth Warren made the political mistake of not recognizing political winds in her own party. She choose not to run for president when people were wanting her to do so very badly. She cut that off very easily. True progressives were, and still are, angry with her for not having endorsed Bernie Sanders, who definitely more close to her Warren’s ideals and policy ideas than Hillary Clinton, while the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries were in progress. (She opted to take to Twitter and out-Tweet Donald Trump. And she waited for the nomination to be determined before endorsing. That suggests that it did not matter to her. That’s not leadership.) And many who felt anger, or still feel anger, with Warren feel she could have aided with delivering Sanders victory in Warren’s home state Massachusetts. (It was won by Hillary Clinton by +17,019 votes and +1.40 percentage points.) So, the enthusiasm, from the most left wing of the Democratic Party, for talking up “Elizabeth Warren for president of the United States!”…that is gone.

    • Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, with the reputation of being a much-admired progressive, endorsed Hillary Clinton in October 2015. (See http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/10/27/surprise-sherrod-brown-endorses-hillary-clinton/74672974/ .) For Brown being such a progressive, to endorse Hillary Clinton (whose husband brought us NAFTA, which she wholly supported), over Bernie Sanders, who is very much to Hillary’s left (especially on economic policies), and coming from bellwether state Ohio, was foolish.

    • Connecticut’s Chris Murphy was a surrogate for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, attacking Bernie Sanders in the primaries and pretending, like New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand (who is also not a leader and not worthy of the presidency), that Hillary Clinton was good but Bernie Sanders was bad on gun control. (Quote: “Listen to me, my heart leapt into this campaign the minute that Hillary Clinton made taking on the NRA a seminal issue,” Murphy told Clinton’s volunteers.” Source: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Murphy-admonishes-Sanders-over-immunity-for-gun-7229714.php ). Mentioning him, for potential, is more about his age and whether he can be packaged as an attractive, viable candidate. (Well, we could have had that discussion about New Jersey’s Cory Booker. But, Booker angered true progressives by voting against drug importation earlier this year. And the Republicans failed, in 2016, with Floridian Marco Rubio who, as we discovered with the primaries debates, was robotic.)

    • Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse recently said the following on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: “They did not want Hillary Clinton to win, that’s why Wall Street money supported Bernie Sanders in in the Democratic primaries to take her out because they thought she would be the stronger candidate. You can’t pretend that didn’t happen.” The source of this mentions that “Whitehouse…[cited] no evidence or data to corroborate this claim.” (See http://observer.com/2017/04/sheldon-whitehouse-claims-wall-street-backed-sanders/ .)

    • California’s Kamala Harris, while she was her state’s attorney general, failed to prosecute now-treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin and OneWest in 2013 (“Kamala Harris Fails to Explain Why She Didn’t Prosecute Steven Mnuchin’s Bank,” https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/ ). She is about as welcoming in “potential” as if we were to taut former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder (who, of course, did not bring prosecutions against any of the notable Wall Street people who crashed the economy in 2008).

    The best potential for any of these people, like more specifically with Sherrod Brown and Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, are vice president. Second banana. Supporting role to the top star, who is the only lead (as it is now with Donald Trump), who gets to be a president of the United States.

    A point I wanted to make, and I hope I did so earlier, was that a presidential election year which flips the White House party is with an individual who is very different, very new to whatever appeals to the senses of the people—and it is especially so with the primaries—and one who seems to be the person who can fix the issues. (That is, whether or not people supporting the opposition party can understand why that party-pickup president prevailed.) It’s especially the case in a year when the incumbent president, in his second term, is term-limited and we have to elect a new president. People want someone who comes across with a vision for where we, the people and this country, will need to go next. And that involves risk.

    The party-flipping winners since television were: 1952 Republican presidential pickup winner Dwight Eisenhower; 1960 Democratic presidential pickup winner John Kennedy; 1968 Republican presidential pickup winner Richard Nixon; 1976 Democratic presidential pickup winner Jimmy Carter; 1980 Republican presidential pickup winner Ronald Reagan; 1992 Democratic presidential pickup winner Bill Clinton; 2000 Republican presidential pickup winner George W. Bush; 2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama; and 2016 Republican presidential pickup winner Donald Trump.

    There was something risky when you think of anything to describe each: Eisenhower, for not holding political office; Kennedy, for being young and having sex appeal (and being a Catholic); Nixon, for being perceived as washed up (he lost his bid for the governorship of California just two years after failing to hold for the Republicans the presidency with Election 1960); Carter, for being from the Deep South; Reagan, for his “voodoo economics” (and a mediocre, former actor from the movies); Clinton, for being young and a Baby Boomer (and playing a saxophone on “The Arsenio Hall Show”); Bush, for being Bush Jr. (and that concern about whether the country would allow for a second father-and-son presidency); Obama, for being African-American (and holding office in the U.S. Senate for just four years); and Trump, for being a wealthy and perceived laughing stock of a reality-competition television host (whose image was also, and still is, perceived as vulgar).

    None of those eight suggested politicians stand out for for being risky, for vision, and for having the potential to be a future president of the United States.

  10. Ronald April 27, 2017 10:24 pm

    WOW, D, you have me floored by what you write!

    I do not want to give up on 2020 that easily, but I must admit you make some excellent points, which leave me speechless at this point.

    I hope you are wrong, but something must be done quickly, as we cannot afford a Republican dominance in the long term.

  11. D April 27, 2017 10:51 pm

    Quoting the piece submitted here by Southern Liberal: “The challenge Democrats have always faced can be summed up with questions like this:
    Are men prepared to fight for a woman’s right to chose?
    Are white people prepared to fight against racism?
    Are citizens prepared to fight for those who are undocumented?
    Are white collar workers prepared to fight for unions?
    Are the wealthy prepared to fight for the middle class?
    Are those who have good health insurance through their employer prepared to fight for those who don’t?
    Are members of the upper and middle class prepared to fight for those in poverty?
    Are the middle-aged prepared to fight for seniors?
    Are seniors prepared to fight for young people?”

    Here is the No. 1 question for people who self-identify as Democrats, for the many who self-identify as independents but who lean Democratic, and for the Democratic Party establishment:

    Which one, and you can only have one, do you choose—Wall Street or Main Street?

  12. Princess Leia April 28, 2017 9:39 am

    Some economic policies of the Democratic Party are: raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable, protecting and strengthening the Affordable Care Act, expanding child- and elder-care tax credits, job transitioning training, protecting Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare. How in the world are such policies considered as being against Main Street???

  13. Rational Lefty April 28, 2017 12:14 pm

    A list of things Democrats have done:
    They created Social Security. They have also improved it repeatedly, from its admittedly racist beginnings and made it universal. They have also twice taken the Social Security Trust Fund out of the general budget. (Guess who put it there…)
    Created Medicare, a single payer plan for the elderly that has made the over-65 demographic the healthiest in the nation.
    Created Medicaid, to provide the very poor with health care.
    Created and passed the Affordable Care Act, which made insurance available to virtually everyone, which makes healthcare more affordable.
    Created the EPA and passed significant environmental regulation.
    Brought us out of the Great Depression and regulated stock markets and banned trade fraud so that we haven’t had a depression since.
    Created bank and financial services regulation designed to prevent collapses
    Created Bank Deposit insurance, paid for by banks, which provided banks with the ability to finance home buying.
    Passed legislation requiring banks to pay back bailout money.
    Passed the GI Bill
    Created Student Financial Aid
    Took student loans away from the banks and removed the private profit motive.
    Created the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and Workplace safety regulations.
    Created trade regulation to ensure that domestic and imported products are safe.
    Established regular food inspections for foodborne illness and to monitor safe processing practices
    Created the CDC and established disease monitoring.
    Banned certain types of military-style weapons that are unnecessary in civilian hands.
    Created a background check system for gun purchases
    Established and regularly raise the minimum wage
    Established unemployment Insurance and increase it to reflect inflation.
    Established the Food Stamp/SNAP system.
    Created cash welfare for the very poor.
    Established school lunch programs for poor children.
    Raised tax rates on the rich to pay for society, and created tax breaks to fuel economic growth.
    Balanced the budget and even created a surplus.
    Raised the debt ceiling whenever necessary to keep the government functioning, and always paid the bills, as the Constitution demands.

    A list of things Republicans have done or tried to do:
    Repeatedly try to kill Social Security and repeatedly push the Trust Fund into the general budget, to hide their deficit spending.
    Cut taxes to the bone for those with the most money, while raising taxes for everyone else.
    Repeatedly attempt to replace Medicare with a voucher program that won’t protect seniors.
    Repeatedly cut Medicaid, so that most poor aren’t eligible, except under the ACA.
    State Republicans refuse Medicaid money that their citizens have paid to expand health coverage.
    Voted at least six dozen times to kill the Affordable Care Act, with no plan to replace it. Theyalso didn’t vote for it in the first place.
    Repeatedly kill environmental regulations, in favor of unfettered fossil fuel development.
    Put us behind the rest of the world by killing federally funded solar, wind and geothermal programs.
    Passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which repealed Glass-Steagall and created a completely unregulated market for mortgage securities that almost caused another Great Depression.
    Passed regulations that caused the Great Depression.
    After the Bush Recession that they caused, they approved a bank bailout plan with no requirement for payback.
    Repeatedly cut funds for student financial aid, creating an over-reliance on federally -guaranteed student loans, which amounted to a windfall for banks.
    Repeatedly refused to cut interest rates on student loans, thus creating a profit for the government.
    Repeatedly refuse to hike taxes on the rich, even when they face record-setting deficits.
    Repeatedly cut funding for OSHA enforcement.
    Repeatedly cut funding for the FTC, FDA, etc., making domestic and imported products less safe.
    Repeatedly cut funding for food inspection programs, causing the number of foodborne illnesses to spike in recent years.
    Cut funding for the CDC and disease monitoring, leading to several outbreaks and no vaccines to stop them.
    Let the ban on military-style weapons expire.
    Refused to consider a universal background check law for gun purchases, even though 92% of Americans were in favor, including most gun owners and NRA members.
    Refuse to raise the minimum wage, which has fallen well behind inflation.
    Cut off unemployment insurance (which workers pay for) for millions, during recovery from the Bush Recession, which they caused..
    Cut funding for Food Stamps (SNAP) during an economic recovery.
    Repeatedly cut funding for welfare for the poor, even during a recovery from a recession. Right now, fewer than 25% of those in poverty get any cash assistance at all.
    Repeatedly cut funding for school lunch programs.
    They were handed a balanced budget in 2001, and cut taxes to the bone for the rich and spent tons of money for two wars off-the-books, which exploded it again, even during a record economic bubble.
    Shut down the government twice.
    In 2013, 144 Republicans actually voted to default on the national debt.

    These lists showing their differences on policies are why we consider the Democrats as being for Main Street and the Republicans as being against Main Street.

  14. Ronald April 28, 2017 12:29 pm

    Thanks for the great lists, Rational Lefty!

  15. Former Republican April 28, 2017 12:56 pm

    Why Trump Gets a Populist Pass

    “The president’s racial demagoguery makes it easier for the GOP to sell tax giveaways to the wealthy.”


    Yep, the white working class apparently is cool with money going to rich WHITE people, as long as not a penny of their money goes to minorities. Godawful.

  16. Pragmatic Progressive April 28, 2017 5:06 pm

    The Indivisible Movement shows that people are fired up. We need to sustain that energy in order to win in 2018 and 2020.

  17. D May 1, 2017 1:14 am

    I want to share this latest from the author of last year’s much-respected book, “Listen Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Democratic Party?”…

    The Democrats’ Davos ideology won’t win back the midwest

    By Thomas Frank
    April 27, 2017 | http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/27/democratic-party-2018-races-midwest-populism-trump

    The tragedy of the 2016 election is connected closely, at least for me, to the larger tragedy of the industrial midwest. It was in the ruined industrial city of Cleveland that the Republican Party came together in convention last July, and it was the deindustrialized, addiction-harrowed precincts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that switched sides in November and delivered Donald Trump to the Oval Office.

    I am a midwesterner too, and I like to think I share the values and outlook of that part of the country. I have spent many of the last 15 years trying to understand my region’s gradual drift to the political right.

  18. Princess Leia May 1, 2017 12:11 pm

    Thanks for that, Rustbelt. It’s very true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.