The idea that Democrats should make it their priority to get us back to "normal" is worse than naive

[BeyondGeography]

At this point, returning to ‘normal’ isn’t good enough. We need a president to make us better

By Leonard Pitts

I like Joe Biden. His gaffes, his mistreatment of Anita Hill and even his kissy-face behavior with segregationists notwithstanding, I think he’s a decent guy. If he is the Democratic nominee, next year, I’ll vote for him — twice, if I can manage it.

If that sounds like enthusiasm, it isn’t. There are cartoon characters I’d vote for if it meant cleansing the White House of its current infestation. So, while I’ll support Biden if it comes to that, I hope it doesn’t. For all his earnestness,the former vice-president, I think, misreads the needs of the nation at this juncture. Like Warren G. Harding 99 years ago, Biden seems to think that what America needs now is to be soothed. Granted, that idea took Harding to the White House, albeit for a presidency primarily recalled for its short duration (he died two years in) and massive corruption.

With Biden, any presidency that premise produces is likely to also be unsatisfactory, though for different reasons. A Biden victory would be an opportunity squandered, a chance for systemic change traded for an implicit promise to take America back to “normal.” That’s what Biden is selling, after all. He keeps touting his ability to work with Republicans, appealing for civility, reaching out to GOP voters. “Some of you voted for Donald Trump,” he said at a recent event in Iowa. “My party stopped talking to you.”

Really, Joe?

The fact is, people voted for Trump, not because they felt neglected, but because for many, he reflected their prejudices. That’s according to empirical evidence. So what Biden intends as a plea for political amity is actually an act of political cowardice.

See, we left normal a long time ago, and it wasn’t because Democrats were mean. We left it because Republicans made a conscious and calculated decision to absent themselves from the responsibilities of citizenship and governance. They broke this country, one tea party rally, one birther lie, one government shutdown, one voter suppression law, one stolen Supreme Court seat at a time. And the idea that Democrats should make it their priority to get us back to “normal” is worse than naive because it rewards and absolves the GOP for years of party-first obstructionism. “Normal” is what got us here. So rather than beg them to hold hands with the rest of us as we try to get back to where we were, let’s map a path to someplace new and challenge them to keep up.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article234564842.html#storylink=cpy.html#storylink=cpy

[rampartc]

1. normal is what got us here.

[Meadowoak]

2. +1

[DownriverDem]

15. I disagree

Normal is what the repubs pulled away from. Folks do want normal. They want to beat trump and move forward. The country is not far left and we need to remember that.

[LincolnRossiter]

27. +1000. The author opens his argument calling others naive.

Anyone who thinks far left progressives’ vision for America and policy priorities are reflective of most Americans’ political values is beyond naive. They aren’t even reflective of a majority of democrats’ values. Not knocking progressives. They are, by and large, sincere and well-meaning people. Heck I even like Liz Warren (but not Bernie). They’d both get wiped out in a general election, though.

[Perseus]

39. According to the polls and statistics, most Americans ARE PROGRESSIVE

I am not sure where you get your numbers from, but the case is that most people want "Universal Healthcare", "Free Education", humane immigration reforms, "Tax Reform" where it is more fair, and they don't care about paying a few more bucks in taxes to make it happen.

Not sure if you have ever been to Canada, or France, those people are not complaining about paying a bit more on taxes, when you do the math we pay more for healthcare or education than anyone else in taxes in those countries where they already have those progressive ideas and have had them for many years, they are happy with what they have.

Americans are progressive, the young population of this country is progressive, they don't want more of the status quo, it has not helped anyone but the corporations. "If you continue to do what you have been doing don't expect different results" and I am afraid that some of our candidates intend to stay with the status quo because they think that makes them electable and so far only one is fooled by that idea not realizing his high numbers are more due to facial recognition than by knowledge of the electorate about his agenda, and his past.

You do realize that most of the candidates who support the status quo are not doing as well on the polls, right? Any reason why Sanders and Warren continue to gain momentum? That should be enough to defeat the thought that Americans are not progressive. Only one of the status quo candidates is doing well and it is because of facial recognition, but as more people learn about his ideas and his past his numbers will continue to dwindle.

[LincolnRossiter]

58. First, most Americans support Healthcare coverage for all. They absolutely do not support the

complete abolition of private options for those who would choose them.

And of course Americans support a free higher education, debt and medical bill forgiveness, the obsolescence of fossil fuels in 10 years, and any other pie-in-the-sky proposal that you can come up with—in theory. Hell all of those things sound great to me.

Once you start to price these proposals out, however, it’s a different story. And that’s not even accounting for the fact that there happens to be another party in Congress, and even in the minority they get a say.

And I’ve been to Canada and France. Both lovely places but not without their share of citizens dissatisfied with their governments and services—especially France. I lived for five years in two nations with universal healthcare (Germany and Bahrain). Both allowed private options.

[Perseus]

84. Not true, a talking point by insurance comps and republicans "people loving their paid insurances"

Yes sure, they love paying tons of money a year, and if they are healthy they never use their paid insurance, then when they file a claim they have to fight with the insurance company because they won't pay, and after months of fighting they get a percentage of that. The co-payments, I mean, who doesn't love co-payments? Paying a big chunk for medicines, again who doesn't love paying a lot of money for prescriptions? Yes, I see how people love their private insurances.

I think you need to meet some people from Europe and Canada, or at least read to find out if they miss paying for health insurance, and if they were unlucky to live when they had private insurance then ask them if they miss it.

"People love their private insurances" That is a private insurance and a republican talking point, and they want to convince people that its true, but there could be nothing so far from the truth and reality...

The other talking point about "Universal Health Care" is that it takes a long time for people to see their physicians. We, in the USA, with private insurance have to wait, sometimes weeks, to see our physicians. I have family in France, and they love their Universal Healthcare, and all the lies republicans say about it they confirm they are lies and nothing else.

Please...don't repeat that meme of "People Love their private insurance", no one loves paying through the roof and having their claims denied.

[LincolnRossiter]

91. Some people absolutely are satisfied with their private insurance.

I am.

And I’ve been to Canada several times (lived in Seattle for two years and Vancouver and Victoria were great for mini Vacations), went to school in upstate NY with several Canadians, lived in Germany for 3 1/2 years and have visited 49 countries including most in Western Europe. They all have private options.

Not to high-hand you, but “you need to get out more to gain a wider perspective” isn’t really a card you want to play with a former Naval Officer who now works for the State Department.

[Perseus]

103. I never said this "you need to get out more to gain a wider perspective" I said meet people or read

And I don't need to be in the Navy to get out. I have traveled the World and I have lived in other countries as well, I keep up with people in countries where they have "Universal Healthcare" and they are all very pleased with it.

If you look at Scandinavian countries you find people are healthier than in the USA.

Also, if you were in the Navy, or work for the State Department you have "Universal Healthcare" that we, the tax payers, pay for, so if you love your private insurance I can understand why. As a former Navy officer you have "Universal Healthcare" for the rest of your life, there is no comparison to people who work for a corporation where they are still paying $500.00 to $700.00 per month plus all the co-payments, and when they leave they are out of insurance. I bet as a State Department employee your monthly payments are minimal, or none, the same with your co-payments. I would be happy with that type of insurance too.

[LincolnRossiter]

106. In the Navy I had "universal healthcare." As a DoS employee I have private insurance.

I didn’t retire from the Navy and receive no benefits as a former officer who simply resigned his commission. Not sure where you got your info.

[Perseus]

108. Friends I have who were in the Navy, Army, etc. get healthcare for life

through the veteran administration.

I don't know about your health insurance from the State Department, but I do know of people who work there and they pay very little of their insurance, or co-payments, not sure if there are different levels and thus different benefits depending on your job functions or department you work for.

But anyway, this is not personal, this is about statistics and poll numbers that point to people wanting to get rid of private insurance, and do want free education.

Regardless, I don't know if you could find more than one from one thousand people, who are not republican, who would say "they love their private insurance", if that much. Many will say they are happy with their insurance because they are healthy, never use it, but when suddenly they are forced to use it and they go through the frustrations they change their minds about it.

I worked for corporate many years, I had to pay a lot of money every month to keep insurance for me and my family, I am glad we never used it, just for yearly checkups because we were all very healthy, but I had colleagues who did not have great health, and I know the struggles they went through with their private insurances. And that is one more thing, my family was very healthy, we hardly used it, premiums went up because other people in the company were not as healthy...Another benefit from private insurance.

I can't believe people will buy that "Some people love their private insurance" bit, it is a clever slogan by insurance companies and republicans. And Biden is trying to sell that, which is not going to fly with Democrats.

[Thekaspervote]

130. What the VA offers can be very limited. Most veterans that live in non-urban areas have to travel

For any kind off free care ...the veterans in the area I live in travel 140 mi. Otherwise what they get from the local VA.. very limited. No major surgeries, no cancer treatment, nothing for treatment of extensive injures

When I had private health insurance indeed it was the best. Not all employers offer the same amount of coverage and it varies a great deal. That’s why improving the ACA would be our best path. If one doesn’t like the amount of coverage an employer offers that’s not your only opinion.

So no, it isn’t just a “clever slogan.” We have to start somewhere. Throwing an existing piece of legislation out and starting over when more than likely we will not regain the senate is a recipe for disaster.

As far as M4A popularity has faded

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/medicare-for-all-isnt-that-popular-even-among-democrats/

The ACA is still popular
https://acatimes.com/the-aca-remains-popular/

[LincolnRossiter]

116. I shopped for, enrolled in, and pay for my Blue Cross Blue Shield like any other consumer. I'd have

to know what others are paying for a plan similar to mine before I can judge what kind of sweet deal I’m getting. It was advertised to us as competitive.

Check it out for yourself.

https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/

And FWIW, federal employees and military also pay taxes. So our benefits are paid for by we, the taxpayer, as well.

And you’re making my point for. I do love my private insurance, so I should be able to keep it. If someone is uninsured, underinsured, overpaying, or just hates their plan for whatever reason, then they should choose to be covered by the notional national public option (whether it’s called Medicare or not).

And again, the Scandinavian countries have private insurance in addition to state-funded care. Do some research.

[Fiendish Thingy]

127. Outside of extended benefits, Canada does not have a private option

Not for primary medical care/hospital stays.


The only private options are for extended benefits such as dental, vision, medical equipment and chiro.
Your statement is inaccurate.

I am a Canadian resident/citizen, who just retired from working for the govt run healthcare system.

[LincolnRossiter]

131. "Extended benefits," paid for by private insurance, apparently include at least some prescription

drug costs and in all account for approximately about 30% of total healthcare expenditures in Canada.

So what part of “they maintain private options” is inaccurate. I didn’t stipulate what was or wasn’t covered by those private expenditures. 30% of the total market isn’t some insignificant little add-on.

Here’s a digestible primer for anyone interesting in knowing how private insurance is typically utilized in nations with universal healthcare. Some candidates’ desire to eliminate private coverage altogether is simply asinine and unnecessary.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders

[emmaverybo]

107. Some are satisfied. Although I would pay higher taxes so all could be covered, I want to keep

the plan that my retirement benefits offers me. Benefits pay 100 percent of the premium for the PPO supplemental, as well as paying the Medicare fee. I have 100 percent coverage, medications for just a few dollars. My mother had Kaiser for 261 a month, like my plan, no deductibles, plan followed her into retirement.

We had modest paying jobs, mine on the low side in education, so nothing special.

Yes, insurance needs regulation on the out of network problem for catastrophic or serious emergencies so people are not stuck’ with huge bill.

My plan even covers urgent care and emergency services, including hospitalization for prolonged travel in other countries and should I choose to relocate outside states, though I would lose Medicare.

PS The yellow jackets are striking over gas tax, which helps pay for single payer. Other countries with single payer do not have perfect care systems. NHS in serious trouble and I increasingly privatizing.

Progressives need to do a better job studying single payer in other countries and also listening to reasons many Americans want to keep their plans or stay with ACA.

[Perseus]

85. And I forgot to say this

There is a lot of corrupt money used by Government, if the cut the military spending by 20% they can fund universal health care, just take the creature's golf outings since in office and there you have $150 million that can be used for healthcare.

There is so much money wasted by our government, take some of the billions we pay to Israel, etc. etc.

That is another republican talking point that there is not enough money to pay for all of it, but when it comes to put money in their pockets then there is plenty.

[emmaverybo]

128. And you propose to cut military spending how? Not a winning proposal for Dems who for decades

have been accused of tax and spent AND being soft on defense. Certainly not happening with this
senate and doubt we will see a 20 percent cut under a Dem senate and house, not with the numbers of moderate Dems, some of whom are also fairly hawkish.

The fact is that as with every single payer nation, we will pay much higher taxes.

France was taxing ultra rich at a high rate, higher than Warren suggests, and still middle class and workers getting taxed at a rate that helped cause the Yellow Jacket protests.

If we take all the progressive proposals together, we will be in a financial mess and still not have done a darned thing about all the social services and programs across the nation that exist currently in a broken, underfunded, or endangered state.

[treestar]

75. most Americans don't matter

with the Senate and the Electoral College. Most Americans are collected in the cities. Those in the low population western states and swing states are the ones who we need to get any victories.

[Demsrule86]

89. Really? Then perhaps you could explain the GOP'S having more states than us, more Senators...and

moderates giving us the House back...most folks are not progressive....I say this with real sadness.

[BlueWI]

93. You're basically summarizing what "normal" is.

The further we stray from a clear legislative agenda, especially since the Dean DNC years, the more we lose ground.

Coordination between the national and state parties needs improvement to win state and local races. Current DNC leadership gets this more than Obama-era DNC leadership. You are also underestimating the marginal impact of Indivisible, Occupy, BLM, and Sanders era activism in adding some energy to party organizing, including on social media and among younger voters. All of these forces are needed in 2020. Reagan Democrats alone aren't enough to build an effective governing coalition.

[Demsrule86]

96. No, the voters who agree with us live in cities...dense population...but the Senate is not based on

this...so while more of our population may agree with progressives...not sure but maybe...the way our government works is it is not enough...hence Hillary won the popular vote but lost the electoral college...any but Biden will face the same fate...and you didn't even mention the house...but the gerrymander will continue based on state governments as the GOP Controls more states than we do...so we will not win without a big tent approach...and any effort to force the issue will result in a horrible loss in 20...where Trump gets four more years.

[BlueWI]

117. District boundaries vary, but there's still only one electorate that votes for all offices.

There are large cities, smaller cities, and towns - yes, there's more Democratic support in larger cities, but where I live has significant Democratic support in town and across the county. Probably 60% in town, 55% in the county, and still over 50% statewide. While congressional races are gerrymandered, there's only one electorate, and as more and more states become purple (Texas possibly, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina), we need a top notch campaign to turn the tide and keep it turning.

Rather than absolutes, we have to think about margins. True, a maximum number of voters is needed to win elections, but what margins contribute the most to a particular victory? Motivating the base is neglected too much, and the nature of the message is equally dismissed. In fact, the only Democratic candidate for president that won in the 20th century is Obama - and his campaign focused on hope and change, not going back to normal, whatever that is. Kerry, Gore, and Clinton all lost with centrist messages in elections since 2000. They were all reasonable, accomplished public servants, but they did not maximize support within all sectors of the Democratic Party. It's hard to even recall what their central messages were, because they were too muddled, and they had difficulty tapping into and leveraging to the grassroots energy of the Democratic Party. That's a potential problem with Biden too - he has had a successful career in public life, but as a standard bearer he still has a lot to prove.

Biden hasn't even won the primary yet - he's no guaranteed winner in the GE. He peaked at around 40% at his high point in the polls so far and has come down to an average of 28% or so, with his most serious opposition being candidates from the liberal wing of the party. His campaign needs to work on the messaging, but his strength doesn't seem to be in that area.

A passive, stand-pat race is the surest way to lose to Trump. A full-court press with energy and vision is the way to go, or else we're in for a nail-biter. That's the risk with Biden - is his campaign, and the candidate himself, ready for a full court press, with clear messaging, effective use of social media, and a legislative agenda that motivates the base? That's what's needed.

[moreland01]

43. "Elizabeth Warren will get wiped out in a GE????"

I sincerely you get to eat those words.

[LincolnRossiter]

56. If she's nominated I sincerely hope to eat those words.

But I’d prefer not to hazard chance.

[Bradshaw3]

102. The polls show you are completely wrong

Biden supporters love to tout polls all day long; well the recent polls show Warren, as well as other Dems, beating drumpf. There is absolutley NO evidence showing she woudl get "wiped out". It has, however, beocme a meme among certain Biden supporters. I think that has more to do with their own worries about Warren beating Biden, which makes it a lousy tactic.

[LincolnRossiter]

104. A couple of things..

First, all of the numbers from the polls are going to come back to Earth. It’s doubtful anyone beats Trump by 16pts once it’s a one-on-one race. Still, Biden is the only candidate consistently outside MoE in head-to-head polls with Trump.

Second, Warren hasn’t faced a lick of serious scrutiny since that DNA test debacle months ago. And everybody knows it.

Third, every other candidate and their supporters, including on this website, attack Biden nonstop. Don’t whine about return fire.

[Bradshaw3]

115. You continue using RW talking points to bash Warren

And, no people questoning Biden on here doesn't justify your use of right-wing smears of Warren. And the biggest whiners on here are Biden supporters who cry about every fatual point made about him, calling it smearing.

And you are wrong again here, making your use of RW talking point even worse. The latest poll has Warren and Sanders beating drumps by less than one point difference each than Biden, so stop acting like Biden has some magic lead that won't go away.

Secondly, Warren has run the best campaign, so she hasn't drawn the criticism that Joe and his past and future comments have drawn. Also, this "comparisonn" between Warren and the DNA test and Joe's many, many mistakes is not only a lie but another RW talking point. She said her family had told her she had NA blood, and a DNA test proved it. The only "debacle" was a drummed up BS from a blogger and a non-tribal official that was in the NYT. The NA community has embraced her and she has the endorsement of NA rep Haaland. But the DNA meme is a RW thing, so it is not just disturbing that some Biden supporters are trying to use it (again showing their depseration) and breaking forum rules.

Thiid, you are not "returning fire". You are using RW talking points and outright lies in a desparate attempt to cover what are obvious flaws in Biden's candidacy. If you can't answer facts with facts, and are only trying to snipe at anothrer candidate who is surging, then you need to take a hard look at what you are doing on this site.

[Thekaspervote]

133. I don't see any Biden supporters here bashing Warren in the true sense IMHO

If you add MOE in the polls most feel they would prefer to go with the candidate that has the best polling number further reducing the MOE ....which isn’t EW.

As far as some DU’ers posting their concerns that she has no chance in the general, that’s fair. She has a 2% approval with the SC AA voters. SC is the bellwether for the AA voting block. 2% will not win the general. So, it’s very fair this be pointed out, which is far from bashing, and certainly not RW talking points...these are the FACTS at this point in the primary.

I look at what I write very carefully and do not snipe at other candidates or other DU’ers.

[Bradshaw3]

136. You are not paying attention and your "point" about AA voters is wrong

If you haven't seen the attacks it's because you haven't looked. Bringing up the DNA thing as a debacle, calling her a left-wing radical, and saying she "can't win" are some examples. The last one is not "concern with whether she can win" as you try to sugar coat it. It is saying she has no chance, which has been repeated here often by at least three posters and which is ridiculous from the polling alone.

And your point about AA voters is not fair and certainly doesn't prove anything about her electability. You are trying to make it sound like they won't vote for her or they have some issue with her, which is unfounded. They are with other candidates now but more will come to her as others drop out and they will certainly turn out ot vote for her in the general. She has gotten great receptions at POC events.

In addition her own electoral record proves this wrong. In the last senate election in Mass, Warren performed as well as HRC did among non-white voters:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/4-things-elizabeth-warrens-last-election-can-tell-us-about-2020/

So this is another false meme being propagated by Biden supporters here, which you just did again. Thanks for proving my point.

[BlueWI]

52. You open your statement with labeling voters as Far Left.

Why not just discuss the actual issues on their merits and their current polling results? The majority of Democratic voters now are supporting more progressive candidates than Biden.

[KPN]

62. Stop labeling Democrats as far left!

It’s insulting and undermines our party!

[LincolnRossiter]

67. I didn't mean it as an insult. Just distinguishing between moderates and progressives.

No offense intended at all.

[Perseus]

86. It is an insult, and ammunition for republicans

If Democrats start thinking that way, when its not true, there is a difference between far left and progressive, and progressive is what Sanders and Warren are, but far left is taboo to most people, the wrong way to bring a Democratic discussion.

In those terms and by Biden's history one could say he tends to the right, that would not be true either but one can pick littlwe things here and there and create the meme. Not good.

And on the statement I am responding to (Just distinguishing between moderates and progressives.), it sounds like you define progressives as "far left"???

[LincolnRossiter]

95. Well negative connotation in rightwing circles notwithstanding, far left is a mundane colloquial

term in most of the western world. It distinguishes more progressive parties from more moderate parties—though they often work in coalition governments (ie Centre-left vs. far-left).

But again, apologize for any offense.

[Fiendish Thingy]

129. No evidence to support your assertion about Warren

In fact both Warren and Biden would likely win the popular vote over Trump by double digits according to the latest polls.

[LincolnRossiter]

132. I don't think those polls hold. Not even for Biden. There aren't going to be any 16 pt wins

in this polarized environment. And my concerns about Warren’s prospects in the general are based in my estimation of the American peoples’ disposition toward some of her policy positions.

And while Biden has consistently been shown to have a double-digit lead over Trump, several polls have Warren within the MoE with him.

[Thekaspervote]

134. Good points.. thx for posting

[NNadir]

55. I dislike that media generated (FOX News generated) locution "Far Left."

These propagandists think that Franklin Roosevelt was a communist, and Hitler was a dynamic and interesting centrist.

[KPN]

64. Exactly. It's inexcusable for any Democrat here

to be labeling any Democratic candidate as Far Left! It plays right into their hands. Frankly, I’m astounded that any Democrat would!

[KPN]

60. No, and neither are we. Stop labeling fellow

Democrats and candidates by inference or otherwise as far left! Some here and in our party could as easily be labeled by inference or otherwise as far right. How helpful would that be?!!!

Geezuz! Just stop.

[Gothmog]

114. We need someone with the character & leadership of Biden to restore OUR sanity.

Link to tweet

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Without question...why Bernie & his progressive vision is what We The People are demanding

to dig ourselves out of this (hell-)hole. Joe's is good guy, but, his time, and old-style brand of politics, are out of favor with the common folk. We need bold progressivism, not moderate incrementalism... we need Bernie like no other time in our nation's history!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ewagner]

20. +100

on edit....

"Normal" was ignoring the middle class and compromising, sometimes without anything of value in return, with the growing right wing....

A boss of mine (in a local government agency) once admonished me "two things you must NEVER compromise with: Evil and Ignorance"

the go-along to get along style isn't going to get us out of this mess....the reason some of our candidates seem "radical" or are proposing programs and legislation that are called "radical" are that way because we have moved so far to the right that they seem radical but are in fact, just slightly to the left of center.

[rusty fender]

92. +1 gazillion!

Exactly this

[lapfog_1]

101. What got us here is the backlash to electing a black man as POTUS.

and then having the gall to nominate a woman.

The white misogynists couldn't take that... so they voted tRump in.

[Buckeyeblue]

119. I think you are sort of right

As much as I like Hillary, making the nomination hers to lose was a mistake. Her negatives were to high. The presumptive nominee should have been Biden. Hillary should have stayed out and Biden's challengers should have been youngish intelligent Democrats.

[Chemisse]

3. The GOP veered astray of 'normal' quite some time ago.

Getting back to the destructive 'governing' of the Obama years is not good enough by a long shot. The culture within the Senate and House has to change significantly before cooperation is possible.

I see Biden as capable of gentle steering of the nation with a predictable outcome and others more able to wrestle it to turn faster, but with uncertain results. There are pros and cons of each.

[DownriverDem]

16. Not a good plan

Attacking Obama is not going win voters.

[kag]

32. I don't think Chemisse was "attacking" Obama.

The fact is that during the Obama years Congress was non-functional because of the Republicans. That was already not "normal." It wasn't Obama's fault, but was certainly a feature of the times.

My worry with Biden (and, like Pitts, I will absolutely vote for him if he is the nominee) is that I'm not sure he can produce the enthusiasm we need in order to get younger voters, disaffected voters, etc. to the polls. A message of "back to normal" sure as hell won't produce such enthusiasm, and without those voters I''m not sure we can win. And we HAVE to win.

[BlueWI]

53. There's nothing wrong with assessing Obama's record.

We're not Republicans. We can have an evidence based discussion of past accomplishments of Democratic administrations.

[Fiendish Thingy]

70. Neither is clinging to Obama's coat tails such a good plan

To win, our nominee must inspire record turnout among young voters by putting forth a bold agenda, not Status Quo normalcy.

[Chemisse]

74. Definitely not attacking Obama.

The GOP went crazy blocking him and stifling his every move, no matter how beneficial or positive it would have been. That was hardly Obama's fault. In fact, he managed to do a lot, and do it with grace and dignity, is spite of the massive resistance.

[NYMinute]

4. So we should nominate an unelectable ultra left wing candidate

to punish GOP?

[Skya Rhen]

6. Yeah, that'll show them...

[tecelote]

10. No. We should use the momentum to move left.

We need an electable ultra left wing candidate.

That'll show us, show the world, we can do better than normal.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. This!! Fo sho!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[calguy]

41. IMO there is no such thing as an "electable, ultra left wing" candidate

I've been alive too many years and have seen too many elections to think any ultra left wing or ultra right wing for that matter could be considered electable. Witness McGovern and Goldwater.

[moreland01]

45. Well . . . .

If we all agree that trump is activating the righties (the racists and the absolute worst kind of people on the planet) and he was able to get elected and maintain 40% support, then why is it out of the realm of possibility that we could make a hard left turn and elect Elizabeth Warren?

Is the right the only one who can win a completely unexpected race? A "no way in hell is trump going to win" type of race?

Cause I think trump is an ultra right wing candidate. And I think a lot of people have changed their mind on him and have reconsidered what they believe.

Let's watch. And let's VOTE!

[BlueWI]

87. What the heck is ultra left wing

other than a right wing talking point?

[KPN]

65. I agree with the exception of the use and

condoning by acceptance of the terms “Ultra Left Wing” and “Far Left” when assigned to any Democrat. There are no ultra left wing candidates! That would require them to be communists in essence.

[tecelote]

105. Good point!

[emmaverybo]

109. Unfortunately, using the 2020 election to shift the party on the political spectrum

is an attempt that puts the ideology of a faction ahead of the interests, and even the will, of the vast majority of democrats.

An ultra left wing candidate is not electable, especially when you consider the EC map and the cheating that will go on, and the fact that we need swing voters and more moderate independents to win,

In addition, no ultra left candidate has the support needed from our base, the AA electorate, whose
more moderate position on the spectrum you would run roughshod over to make a point to the world.

This is indulgent, selfish, and a recipe for political suicide we will all have to pay for in another four years of Trump. Further, though you talk about showing the world, you don’t talk about saving it—from a first nuclear conflict, for instance, which experts put us closer to than ever before in history.

Do you have an ultra left candidate in mind with any foreign policy chops?

This election is not an experiment. It is not a platform for your statement politics.

Re-read what you have said. Really??

[BlueWI]

118. So who are the ultra left wing candidates?

Do they have positions that are included in the Democratic party platform? I would guess that there's pretty significant agreement between the "ultra left" candidates and the party platform.

Is it fair to call Biden an "ultra right" candidate for the Democrats? I don't think so - so why is "ultra left" acceptable? The Democratic Party, overall, is quite centrist, well within the boundaries of public opinion, including Sanders and Warren, who you may be referring to but are reluctant to name.

Nobody wants to lose to Trump. The only person who ever has was a moderate. What are the lessons there?

I also get tired of black voters being referred to constantly as debating points, but I don't see any big rush in these conversations to talk about the issues of higher concern to black voters. More often than that, I see the few black candidates for the nomination getting bashed for talking about their experiences and viewpoints. Unless your name is Barack Obama or John Lewis, the rhetoric in this forum towards black voices is frequently excoriating.

And if history is a guide, black voters will support the nominee at a rate of 90+%. It's white voters that are the problem - they provide majorities for Republicans. Let the primaries decide who earns majority black support. The talk about black firewalls that goes back to the Clinton-Sanders race is always reductive and didn't help us in 2016, piling up primary victories in South Carolina and Alabama that didn't help in the GE at all.

Why can't we, the supposedly evidence based party, simply disagree without labeling fellow Democrats as "ultra left"?

[Alpeduez21]

11. So you won't vote for the primary winner?

A vote for Biden is a vote for mamby pamby politics that let the racist repukes gain SO MUCH power. Repukes need to be fought and vanquished at EVERY turn. Until rapists are not nominated for the white house. Until child molesters are not nominated for the Senate. Until sexual predators turning back the rights of women are not nominated. Until white supremacy is wholly and completely eradicated from our government offices and schools and churches they must be defeated.

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. Why Bernie is the best choice, as the steady swing in the polls is startin to show.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Thekaspervote]

46. What you are wanting, eradication of the racist culture is what we all want. Probably isn't going to

Happen. You can kill the messenger if you want but this is where we are as a country. Indeed we need to work towards that goal harder than ever.

First we have to have a dem in the WH. Warren polls at just 2% with AA voters. That will not win the general

[DownriverDem]

17. Exactly

Those who lean far left are blind to the fact that the country is not far left. We ran a far left candidate and lost big time. Wake up folks. I've seen this story before and the repubs won for decades.

[Perseus]

31. Who was that far left candidate?

I don't know of any...I hope you are not talking about Hillary Clinton, if you are you will need to explain why you think she is far-left because what I know about her "far-left" doesn't describe her positions at all.

If you meant HC, I will tell you that she lost because republicans cheated, they messed with those key states on the EC, that was it, and the delegates of the EC were such cowards that didn't have the guts to vote for HC knowing the disaster they will bring to the nation by voting for the creature.

[kag]

33. My reaction, exactly, Perseus!

Not sure who the commenter is talking about, but Hillary? Far left?

[Thekaspervote]

47. This!

[Autumn]

121. We ran a "far left candidate and lost big time"? When was this?

[Perseus]

29. That is not what the article talks about

It is a great article that spells out the deficiencies of Biden, and like the author, I will vote for Biden if he becomes the nominee, but am I pulling for him to be the nominee? No, and some of the reasons are spelled out in that article.

His fantasy that he can negotiate with Republicans is one of his biggest weaknesses, he did it once and we lost, it was a win-win for republicans, he gave the house to "Mitch", etc. Why was it that he could not negotiate with Republicans when he was VP and now, though magic, if he becomes president he will be able to do it? He now has a secret formula? His biggest weakness being that he wants to be liked by all, and he will do things he should not do to try to gain that acceptance.

I am not sure who you referred to as "unelectable ultra left" candidate (I call them PROGRESSIVES), but maybe because Beto is one of the candidates who wants to remain in the status quo that you find other people too on the left. There are experiments in the World that you may consider "unelectable ultra left" that have proven that the ideas of the Scandinavian countries that have yielded solid societies, well educated societies, and some of the happiest people on earth implemented those ideas many years ago and the results have been nothing but fantastic, those are the progressive ideas you seem to think are too on the left.

People at DU are always complaining about other people when they express their opinion about a candidate they don't want, and if there is any bashing I have heard is "unelectable ultra left", that is a good one republicans will use a lot, that will scare a lot of people even when they don't understand what it means, which to me is nothing but "progressive ideas".

[area51]

61. +1 n/t

[KPN]

66. +1000

[Thekaspervote]

135. Politics is a messy business we all know it... few accept it!

Whom ever the nominee is regardless ...they damn well be ready to wade thru the piles and piles of crap that will thrown at them to find the 1-2 gop votes necessary to pass a legislation that millions are depending upon.

If they tried and failed, that’s one thing but to sit on the fence of purity and say I won’t work with them because I don’t want to get my hands dirty.... come on!!

[NNadir]

44. Actually "electability" is determined by something called "elections." I remember soothsaying...

...about the "electability" of a guy named Barack Obama, and in fact, plainly confess that I worried about myself.

[HeartlandProgressive]

59. great point

people do get to vote.

[KPN]

63. Are you referring to a Democrat?

[BlueWI]

90. What's needed is clarity on what Democrats stand for

no matter who the candidate is.

Better communication and clear legislative goals, along with expanding citizen interest in how good policy affects their everyday lives.

That's how we finally beat Walker in Wisconsin - clear messaging and a stronger ground game. And so far in Biden's campaigns as standard bearer, that's what has been lacking.

Whoever does this well will win the nomination. Not a single delegate has been won to this point for 2020, so this is our party's opportunity to do thiese fundamentals more effectively.

[Voltaire2]

97. The polls all show the top three crushing Shitler.

So your argument is first of all nonsense, and secondly propagation of their theme that standard Democratic Party platform issues like universal healthcare, workers rights, universal access to education, are “ultra left wing”.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Yes we do need to heal and TRY to return back to normal.

Op wrong imho

[BeyondGeography]

7. Yeah, who knows

Maybe Republican epiphanies really are just around the corner.

[Alpeduez21]

12. +1000

You probably should add the sarcasm emoji b/c some of the candidates and electorate are naïve enough to believe this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. LMFAO!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Perseus]

34. Returning to normal is not as difficult as it seems

First, everything these crooks reversed from Obama has to be reversed and put back, including the tax cuts. The rhetoric will change immediately when Democrats take power, they are not fascists, so their speech will not be offensive, that is a back to normal by default.

Democrats will also be welcomed back to the World stage by our allies, that will happen immediately.

Stronger laws must be put in place to investigate new-Nazi organizations and to make sure the law comes on them with full force.

Progressive ideas must be implemented across, including education, health care, immigration, etc.

Democrats cannot allow republicans to change the conversation and their masquerade must be removed every time they open their mouths.

Back to normal just means being ourselves, being the humans we were meant to be, what we are seeing today from the republicans is a deprivation of human values, and as we all know, it is not normal.

[KPN]

68. Ain't gonna happen. They are out to subjugate

if not destroy us. Oh, we can appease them perhaps by going along with them — but they aren’t going to change because of Joe Biden. Sorry.

[gordianot]

8. It is the constant lies and inflated emotional appeal that seems to never stop.

The crimes committed by Bush and Trump are permanent stains. I fear Trump fascism has been allowed to go too far and will not yield to elections.

[Martin Eden]

9. Normal was a dysfunctional mess.

We can do better.

We MUST do better.

[Alpeduez21]

13. Let us never forget

that normal in America is racism and misogyny. That is the history of the US. We have to do better.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

25. MUCH better, and I know just the ticket...

in either order...


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Merlot]

42. Normal in America is racism and misogyny. So true.

I'd suggest that "geting back to normal" means we cover up, ignore, and enable racism and sexism just like we were doing before.

The rot has been exposed, there is no way "back." It's republicans who always want to go "back" to some mythological time.

"Far-left" candidate is a republican talking point. "America is not far-left" is a republican talking point.

[Roy Rolling]

14. There is no "normal"

It’s an effective slogan only.

If they want to turn back the clock, there are broken countries in the Middle East that did that with no success. They went all the way back to “normal” of 1,000 years ago.

Normal isn’t a place or time, it’s a state of mind. I have trouble myself knowing what is “normal”, but I sure as hell know Trump ain’t.

[RVN VET71]

18. Gollum, the GOP has descended into Gollum

The Republican Party has allowed itself, eagerly and passionately, to lose its soul and to be completely and irreversibly dipped in greed, to the detriment of everything that was caring, decent, and fair in humanity. Like Tolkien's Hobbit, a decent little bloke who lost his soul to his Precious and became a fiend, a monster.

It needs not to be defeated in 2020 but ground into the dirt and muck, smashed and utterly, irreversibly destroyed. I mean that with all my heart and mind. It's become -- as anyone can plainly see -- a destructive force, contaminating the soul of the nation. It caters to the wealthy, the wealthiest, the most heartless human outliers in the country -- in the goddamned world! -- and kicks down, beats, spits on the poor, locks up their children or, worse, sends them home to die.

The Democrats need an opponent, an opposition party. Of course they do. But let one be formed by sober thinking men and women who harbor a genuine sense of compassion and justice for the people, by people with whom a decent Democrat could actually work without compromising her own integrity and moral standing, people who actually love America and what it once stood for.

2020, if the America of legend and myth is ever to be restored, must not just squeak out a victory. It must crush the party of traitors and temporizing sociopaths so that no one will ever feel comfortable publicly declaring allegiance to it, so that the very name will be offal and loathsome, like "Nazi" to the Germans.

Yep, I'd vote for Biden, too, although I'd much rather see fresh visions and new blood in the White House and stick by my support and admiration of the Maltese combat veteran, Rhodes Scholar, and mayor of South Bend. Biden might provide at least a tourniquet to stanch the bleeding and give us all time to take a breath. Buttigieg would provide intelligence, compassion, and a receptivity to ideas that could bring America to the level of world leadership -- moral and political -- that would belong to it if it used the jewels of its own diversity to its and the world's advantage.

Sorry for the rant. It's been a gloomy weekend what with mass shootings leading to mass deaths once again and thoughts and prayers offered to the demon gods of the NRA.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Of course Biden gets my vote should he win the general, but fortunately, he wont as the steady swing

in the polls is startin to show. It's gonna be Bernie and/or Elizabeth, as I've been sayin for years!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Ponietz]

72. + but the R Party has also the cunning of Sauron, the avarice of Smaug, and an army of orcs!

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2019, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

‘That’ Gollum is dragging us toward Mt. Doom.

[BeyondGeography]

111. The worst thing Biden has done IMO is revive the fantasy of the reasonable Republican

I’m not saying they don’t exist as everyday people, I do commerce with many of them myself. But when faced as a party with a popularly elected (by 10 million votes no less) Democrat, their strategy was to deny him progress at every turn and defeat him politically.

Biden had a front-row seat for that and I know he’s not stupid. In dusting off the old CW and summoning up the long-dead fantasy of bipartisanship he’s showing just how out of touch he is with the current mood and reality. That doesn’t mean he can’t win, but when he can’t get anywhere due to Republican intransigence people will realize we’re right back where we started in 2008 and there would be political hell to pay; a replay of the 2010 midterms and a demoralized base that would have no Barack Obama to energize it for a re-election fight.

So, yes, to your point, crush them by name and frog-march as many of them who legally deserve it to the pokey once you do get power. Americans want to see you mean business. There can be no reconciliation without truth, that’s the “normal” that got us here.

[ananda]

22. Too much advice.

If Dems are just Dems, we’ll be fine.

[onetexan]

37. I'd rephrase that by calling it "unnecessary advice"

[frazzled]

26. I understand normal to mean

(In this political context): honest, transparent, fact-based, moral, humane, intelligent, open to considering the ideas of a range of advisers, managerially competent, etc.

To me, it has little to do with policy prescriptions (which almost never fail to undergo massive change from campaign rhetoric to the presidency to Congress, whether left, right, or center in outlook.)

So yes, we need a return to normalcy: normal behavior in the White House and in Congress, where decency, respect, thoughtfulness, seriousness, and steady hands can guide the nation back from the brink of rancor and lunacy. And no tweeting.

[pazzyanne]

35. Bingo!

We have a winner!!!

[obnoxiousdrunk]

48. +1.

[Thekaspervote]

49. You nailed it!

[KPN]

69. The GOP ain't going to go there ... nor is

Joe going to cause them to imo. Oh, he might get them to go along with a thing or two by making concessions through “compromise and collaboration”. But they’ll knee cap him and return to their goal of subjugating all who aren’t “with them” at their earliest opportunity. This IS normal for them!

[BeyondGeography]

78. Especially as he has already signaled to them that he wants their approval

and won’t touch the filibuster. Yes, let’s go back to the days of negotiating with ourselves in the hope that the Susan Collinses and Olympia Snowes of the world will have an epiphany.

[LongtimeAZDem]

81. +∞

[brutus smith]

83. When was America normal?

Certainly not in my lifetime.

[Newest Reality]

28. Homeostasis

Show me a normal anything. It is like a James Randi challenge.

The idea of getting back to normal smacks of an unrealistic, nostalgia, which is really useless, especially in an era of accelerating change and perfect storms brewing in so many facets of life.

Perhaps a better effort would be to achieve some form of stability, which one could argue was more the case prior to this Tasmanian Devil MisAdminstration whirling about madly and injecting chaos into the system.

In order to progress--and that is not mere preference, but a necessity when we are faced with relentless change--we could harness the energy of the current chaos and utilize it to find some balance and move on.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Bravo! Trump is reversing 90 years of progress and 8 years of Obama, but

we are supposed to accept the shit they have given us. Phooey on that one!

We have some reversals to make, and we're just going to have to do what the GOP did and act and obstruct and ignore the protests, fight in the courts, and keep working.

Court do worry me. Because we do have Trump judges, and often it only takes one.

[onetexan]

38. +1 -K&R

[KPN]

71. Agree completely. What we have right now

IS normal to most in the GOP. Normal is relative. We need to move forward, not back to normal. So long as the GOP is led by racist science deniers and faux Christians, it’s (normal is) ultimately what got us here.

[world wide wally]

40. It all takes time no matter who gets in office.

Biden is a good person to transition for 4 years. Then we can move on to truly progressive changes. First, we have to right the ship.

[Thekaspervote]

50. Oh my!! A voice of sanity!! Thank you

[BlueWI]

51. Spot on.

We need regime change AND fierce pursuit of economic and environmental sustainability. Several Democratic candidates are stronger in these respects than Biden.

[Kahuna7]

54. Joe has been moving us forward for 45 years. So there's THAT!

[procon]

57. This opinion piece uses a lot of rightwing tropes

and buzzwords. So why are we spreading more Republican attacks against our leading Democratic candidate?

Delete this rifgtwing thread is always an option, yeah?

Please stop water carrying for Trump. If your candidate has worthwhile positions then promote her so well know what she's about, not what Republicans think of Democrats. Now they're piling on Biden because he's the front runner, but should your preferred candidate take the lead will you agree to bashing her with the same rightwing accusations?

[Gothmog]

73. There will be a ton of damage to be repaired after trump is voted out

It took years to repair the DOJ Civil Rights and Voting Rights sections after Bush 43. I disagree with the OP and think that we need to focus on repairing our government after the damage that trump has done

[50 Shades Of Blue]

76. Whose definition of "normal"?

[treestar]

77. Wishful thinking

The Orange Twitler is not normal; not even a normal Republican - most people would be happy with normal again and this is the worst election in which to try to get a "true progressive" into the WH, where they could do nothing anyway, as long as the Senate has 40 Republicans. The Senate and the EC are undemocratic but still in use. It only matter what the rural states and the swing states want.

[BeyondGeography]

79. I guess you missed the part about dumping the filibuster

Biden will keep it. Warren won’t, because there are no sensible work-outs to be had with Republicans and we can’t wait another decade to start solving our problems.

[treestar]

80. The POTUS has no choice in the filibuster

and no power to order it be abolished.

[BeyondGeography]

82. She has called for dumping it

If Senate Dems have the majority and want to start out Warren’s first term at odds with her on that point, defending the status quo and fighting a popularly elected President who ran on big structural change it would be their call, yes.

With Biden, they could all rest easy.

[treestar]

122. They would have to have 51 at least, no?

To make that change - that is, if they don't need 60. No call to presume Biden would be against it.

The Rs have an advantage when it comes to the Senate, so having it has stopped them from doing terrible things. Obamacare would be gone by now.

[Demsrule86]

88. No, you don't like Joe Biden...first of all. And secondly, many folks disagree with you...and it

sure won't help when Trump wins reelection...Biden is the most electable Democrat period.

[tirebiter]

94. The normal that Trump promised is a preObama normal

Under Obama there was definite move towards more civil rights for everybody. Trump was able to speak to a people who felt they had to give something up for that to be true so he promised to make the piggies more equal. I want to return to the abnormality of the Obama years and can't think of anybody better than Biden to get us there. There were issues that Joe pointed out like ACA were a big fucking deal. Hell, that got us back the House in 2018.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[highplainsdem]

98. This is nonsense from Pitts and a misrepresentation of Biden, who wants to move this

country forward.

Comparing Biden to Harding is particularly inept.

But I guess if you're backing a candidate or candidates doing much worse in the polls than Biden, you get desperate.

I posted a poll here fairly recently to see how many of the progressive Democratis on this board thought we really had a chance of getting Medicare For All through Congress, if even by some not-terribly-likely-IMO-chance either Sanders or Warren can win the GE.

Only a very small percentage of DUers -- a group that currently has Warren as the favorite, very different from the polls -- thought that was possible.

[Gothmog]

113. @JoeBiden is running for President to restore the soul of America.

Link to tweet

[peggysue2]

99. I can only answer this piece with my own sense of 'normal'

Normal is the Office of the United States' Presidency being regarded with respect and honor. Not a platform for personal grievance and chest-thumping narcissism. Normal is a foreign policy that recognizes the importance of our allies because so many of the problems facing us are global in nature. Normal is a POTUS who rejects tyrants and despots, not sing about love letters with the sawed-off Kim or pretend Putin is anything less than a criminal/thug. Normal is for a POTUS to be as honest as he/she can with the American people, not lying 12,000+ times over anything and everything. Normal is calling out racists and bigots, not defining them as 'very fine people, too.' Normal is identifying with the citizenry's problems, be it jobs, healthcare, education, etc. and working to rectify, not turning every problem into a partisan brouhaha, often blaming victims of failed policy for their own suffering. Normal is . . .

I could go on and on. We all could because Donald Trump is abnormal, deficient as a leader and as a human being.

No one is calling for a 'normal' as defined by the past because there is no marker for the Trump Administration. And no one is working to absolve the GOP for years of obstructionism. Normal is getting down to business and turning around the mess that is Donald Trump and his sycophantic enablers. So we can Go Forward, dealing with the serious issues before us. Donald Trump has been a 4-lane disaster on the turnpike. We need to clear the road of crumpled vehicles, attend to the injured, grieve the losses and then reset our GPS and get back on the pike.

Because that's what normal people do. We brush ourselves off and never forget how we got here. And then, we get on with it.

Normal.

[NNadir]

100. I can credit this analysis. In this sense, "normal," as compared to "freak" would be great. n/t.

[emmaverybo]

110. Your answer represents what those of us who subscribe to a "return to normal," as one part of

an agenda for going forward after Trump, mean, despite attempts to distort that.

Beautifully articulated.

[BlueWI]

123. All the leading Democratic candidates would do this.

Several Democrats offer more thorough and substantive insights about problems with "normalcy" before Trump, compared to Biden's approach to systems thinking.

[peggysue2]

125. If that's the case . . .

then people should get off the argument that returning to normal is daft and naive. Because until we get back on an even keel, restore our agencies and institutions, no forward movement is possible regardless of how bold or insightful a policy prescription may be. The repair work alone will be substantial. Our State Dept., EPA, Interior, Agriculture, etc.--all of them have been hollowed out and turned into special interest cash registers for Trump and his cronies.

So you and I will have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think Biden is the best candidate to turn this mess around and has the experience and skillset to get us moving into the future.

[BlueWI]

137. The point is that normal is too low of a bar.

Any Democrat can accomplish having a president who doesn't engage in hate speech, doesn't single-handedly derail trade agreements, who hires a staff with genuine expertise in their fields, and who offers a personal example that suggests higher character than self-aggrandment and self-enrichment. But that's too low of a standard given the extraordinary nature of the challenges.

It's true that we disagree on whether Biden's the best in the field to lead in this process of attaining competent management and crafting a future-oriented legislative agenda. It's a positive that Biden values consensus building. However, he won't have my vote in the primary because I see a few others in this race who bring a more change-oriented focus to their campaign. And people need to get off the argument that only Biden can lead us.

IMO, the Biden campaign is going to need more clarity in its vision and legislative agenda to win the nomination and the GE. I hope it makes these improvements because a substantive campaign by multiple candidates will strengthen Democratic turnout. And of course, the only Democrat to win in the 21st century didn't run a meh campaign on the need to return to normal, even though arguably, GWB led a train wreck presidency just like Trump - Wall Street collapse, a disastrous war of choice, the epic racially tinged failure of Katrina, and so much else. Still, Obama ran on a change oriented message, from optics to policies to organizing strategies. We didn't go with the safe moderate choice, and we won, the only two elections Democrats have won since 1996.

What's the lesson there?

[Gothmog]

112. Joe Biden will restore and build upon the normalcy and stability that Trump has destroyed

Link to tweet

[Midwestern Democrat]

120. IMO, Washington has been broken since about 1994. Obviously, it's much worse now but '94 is when

the rot really started setting in. I do believe that restoring American politics to where it was before the mid 1990s - before "hyperpartisanship" really started taking over - is the ultimate solution - I'm just not very optimistic if this goal is achievable. I doubt Biden could really fully accomplish this - eradicating a malignancy that's been at least 25 years in the making - within a single presidency, but perhaps he could get the ball rolling in that direction - and that's enough to get my vote in next year's primary.

[BlueWI]

124. Fair enough

but the scale of problems we face can't be addressed with 1994-era solutions. Resource depletion, climate change, nationalist movements in an increasingly diverse world, income inequality at an 1890s level - these problems are too big and immediate for anything short of bold solutions. Demand side tax cuts, appealing to better angels of our nature from Washington, and fiddling with interest rates might have made some difference in 1994, but it won't do much in 2021.

I agree with your skepticism about what can be done, and I have a strong feeling too that Washington is too dysfunctional and timid to act on a scale that's necessary to address these problems. So I tend to favor the candidates that advocate for bolder solutions, and IMO, that's not Biden.

[Gothmog]

126. How will Biden fixed the damage done by trump?

Link to tweet