In his most recent New York Times column David Brooks points to the grave moral necessity of voting for Elizabeth Warren in 2020:
And yet, if it comes to Trump vs. Warren in a general election, the only plausible choice is to support Warren. Over the past month Donald Trump has given us fresh reminders of the unique and exceptional ways he corrupts American life. You’re either part of removing that corruption or you are not. When your nation’s political system is in danger, staying home and not voting is not a responsible option.
Politics is downstream from morality and culture. Warren represents a policy wrong turn, in my view, but policies can be argued about and reversed. Trump represents a much more important and fundamental threat — to the norms, values, standards and soul of this country.
That sounds familiar to me since precisely the same argument was made to me for voting for Hillary Clinton. What is that old wisecrack about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results? The Democrats seem hellbent on reproducing Hillary Clinton as closely as possible in their candidate for 2020. Except this time around it’s Hillary Clinton with even less meaningful experience and practically no discernible interest in foreign policy.
Maybe the results will be different this time.
Shorter: Brooks – fact free assertions and faux high minded appeals to “our souls.” Golly. Sounds serious skipper.
I understand never-Trumpers: money, ego and NY/Wash social standing. But I really have to question your assertion that progressives are but a minority in the Democrat Party. Warren is running a pure fantasy, free beer for everyone campaign. A progressives dream and it has catapulted her to top spot. You can only assume the progressives head count is underestimated, or progressives are simply the more active in the primary. Allowing the latter is a suicide mission for the supposed rational Democrat majority.
I suppose, however, Warren is better than HRC, for whom all are now evil Russian tools out to get her. She crazy…………
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=can+you+spot+the+looney+monty+python&&view=detail&mid=892AD9EBD33561DFFE9F892AD9EBD33561DFFE9F&&FORM=VDRVRV
Progressives have become a narrow majority of the Democratic Party rather recently:
My opinions are that a) a minority of actual voters in the Democratic Party are progressives largely because blacks and older voters tend to be more moderate or even conservative than Democrats generally and they actually show up to vote unlike young people or college professors and b) progressives are about 10-15% of the American people. That’s just arithmetic. Half of Democrats are progressives and Republicans and independents are 70% of Americans.
“fact free assertions”
Says the guy who claimed Trump has balls. Oh, forgot. Florida now has legal pot.
As far as Warren goes, she just has to be better than Trump, a very, very low bar.
Steve
Warren has issues, but I don’t think she’s like Clinton. First of all, she doesn’t come with all the Clinton baggage.
Warren may be able to defeat Trump, if shes able to counter-punch with humor as she has done recently. I sense people are tiring of the battle in DC. They want comity, and Trump, for all his policy’s I approve of, never comes off as disarmingly funny. He can’t beat up on Warren like he did Hillary because Warren has never presented herself as a tough opponent. All of her pie in the sky will be sidelined by congress so not to worry.
Dave
I agree with “a” almost in its entirety. I’d be suspect of attempting to reduce the progressive headcount to polls and arithmetic. For example, Trump supporters are under-reported. Just my view. In any event, at this point in time Warren is the leader. Democrats are shooting their dirks off.
steve – get back to me when you aren’t so desperate.