At the New York Daily News Errol Louis provides some sound advice for the Democrats:
On paper, the plans advanced by Sanders and Warren would tax corporations and wealthy Americans to collect the trillions of dollars that Medicare for All would cost. But in the real world, there’s no reason to believe such a plan would have a prayer of passage in Congress.
Nor, for that matter, should Democrats expect a candidate promising so much economic disruption to carry the states needed to defeat President Trump in November.
At some point in every campaign season, voters must judge future leaders by what they can realistically accomplish. For Democrats, right now would be a good time to adopt a left-leaning version of the so-called Buckley Rule.
Years, ago, conservative author and commentator William F. Buckley was asked which candidate right-leaning Americans should support in the 1968 Republican presidential primaries. He famously replied: “The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.â€
Conservatives who followed Buckley’s advice decided Richard Nixon hit the sweet spot: he was further to the right than Govs. George Romney of Michigan and Nelson Rockefeller of New York, but arguably more electable (at that moment, anyway) than the more conservative Gov. Ronald Reagan of California.
The strategy worked: Nixon won the nomination and the White House in 1968. Fourteen years later, Reagan was judged to be more conservative and more electable than George H.W. Bush, and swept to victory.
Klobuchar, polling in fifth place in Iowa, is in effect asking her fellow Dems to adopt the Buckley Rule of party discipline that brought conservatives a generation of success at the polls.
The question is whether they will take it? Magic 8 Ball says “Reply hazy, try again”. During the 2016 primaries there were some who said that Bernie Sanders was running to move the “Overton Window”, the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. Whether that was the case or not he was certainly successful in moving it. Anyone who was around in 2016 and compares what was being said then with what is being said now would have to acknowledge that.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that Bernie Sanders is running for president this time around. The question if he should become the Democrat’s candidate this time around is whether 51% of Democrats is actually enough to win in the general election. Frankly, I doubt it.
That in turn means that those inclined to vote for Bernie Sanders need to do some soul-searching. Is it better vote for the candidate they really want and lose the election or a candidate they don’t much care for and win?
Maybe they plan on winning the Presidential Election the old Chicago way; by stealing it / sarc
Seriously though, it’s pretty obvious that if any Democrat is elected president they’re not going to abide by that irritating old-fashioned racist/bigoted advice and consent thing or allow Congressional intransigence to get in the way of their agenda. It might get to the point that Nancy Pelosi or her successor will end up impeaching a Democratic President to keep THEM in line.
Interesting. Over at Joyner’s place I think people finally came to the conclusion, with a few holdouts, that it really wasn’t right to criticize Trump over things he says that have no chance of happening. While it might be OK to make fun of the stupidity people shouldn’t act as though much of what Trump says has any chance of happening. Yet here we are doing it to Democrats.
Steve
So, you think M4A has no chance of happening?
I think that everything that any politicians says is fair game. I don’t waste my time complaining about things that aren’t worth breath like admitting Israel to NATO or that such and such a demonstration in favor of him was the largest in history. I’ve criticized his tax cut (the personal income tax), the Wall, abandoning the JCPOA, abrogating START, and any number of other dumb moves.
“Over at Joyner’s place I think people finally came to the conclusion, with a few holdouts, that it really wasn’t right to criticize Trump over things he says that have no chance of happening. ”
As the instigator of that extended debate, I’m not sure I agree with that assessment and regardless, I don’t see the media or political Twitter changing at all.
As for the larger issue, one can definitely criticize things people say and policies they propose, even if they are political fantasies. If nothing else, it’s useful as signaling.
“So, you think M4A has no chance of happening?”
The Sanders and Warren version? No. There is a better chance that Mexico will pay for a wall between their country and ours.
“I’ve criticized his tax cut (the personal income tax), the Wall, abandoning the JCPOA, abrogating START, and any number of other dumb moves.”
Except for the wall, those are things that actually happened. The cuties dont want you criticizing those, but once the cult effect wears off I am sure even they would agree it is OK to criticize anything a politicians actually does. The topic was, IIRC, something about a Middle East version of NATO. Not happening as Andy pointed out. I agree, so it is good sport to make fun of the idea and the ignorance from which it sprang, but I dont see the point in taking it too seriously. We could argue about important stuff like health care instead. Same goes for M4A by Bernie. Not a chance.
Steve
I didn’t interpret it that way but, remember, Trump-speak is different from ordinary English. I interpreted as a roundabout way of suggesting that Israel become a member of NATO. The logic is
Middle East NATO =>
Expand NATO into the Middle East =>
Identify candidates =>
Admit Saudi Arabia and Israel
Now, my own view is that would be loony. Governmental entities (of which a treaty alliance is one) require shared values. I don’t even think much of the present composition of the alliance, specifically, post-Kemalist Turkey’s membership.
I guess I don’t have your ability to distinguish between things that won’t happen and those that will. I’ve already admitted today’s politics baffles me. I understand the motivations. I just don’t understand the link between what’s being done and what has been ordinary politics.
” Trump-speak is different from ordinary English.”
You are being sucked in. Trump utters some word salad then everyone tries to interpret it in their own way. Shouldn’t we expect POTUS to say what he means in such a way everyone can understand? At any rate, I think it leads to trouble when everyone starts interpreting for him.
Steve