Two fields of candidates, two different leagues

December 14, 2007

Offering his take on the “winners and losers” from yesterday’s Democratic debate in Iowa, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza highlighted one clear and obvious loser:

The Republican Field: For those spartan few of us who watched both debates, one thing was crystal clear: the Democratic field was far deeper and more impressive. That’s not to say it is and will always be so. But today the Democrats on stage engaged in a civil but edifying debate on issues that each candidate seemed well versed on and ready to talk about. It was a stark contrast to the Republican gathering, which was largely hijacked by former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Keyes’ nonsense notwithstanding, I thought the same thing. Indeed, it was perhaps the one real benefit to having the two presidential fields gather for debates on successive days — we could not only measure candidates against the primary rivals, we could measure the fields against one another.

I’m obviously not a neutral observer when it comes to ideology, but I like to think I’m objective enough to evaluate the quality of the two sets of presidential hopefuls. And by every measurement I can think of, the Democratic field is more serious, more credible, more knowledgeable, more consistent, more principled, and more dignified.

It’s one of the main reasons I’ve been comfortable this year remaining neutral in the Democratic primary. Whenever someone asks me about my personal favorite, I always say the same thing: “I don’t have a strong preference, but I’m really impressed with the field.”

I started saying that in February. These guys haven’t given me reason to change my mind one bit.

Yesterday, Markos expressed a grudging preference for Obama, but more as a result of process of elimination.

Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn’t taken public financing, I’d probably go for him….That doesn’t mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you’re left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually “no”).

Kevin Drum responded with an analysis I endorse enthusiastically.

I guess it’s human nature to obsess more than we should on flaws and weaknesses, but honestly, these three are all pretty damn good Democratic candidates. With the possible exception of the Dr. Jekyll half of LBJ, any one of them would be the most liberal president in the past half century — and unquestionably the most liberal since 1969.

And electability? They’re all electable…. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all solid liberal candidates; all of them are pretty good at inspiring their own base; and all of them seem to know how to run a campaign. I’m still dithering about who to support, but while I have issues with all three of them, I’m mostly dithering because they’re all really good and the differences between them are, frankly, pretty small. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Republicans, on the other hand, are really and truly screwed. Every party has suffered through bad fields in the past, but off the top of my head I’m having a hard time remembering one as bad as the 2008 GOP crop. They’re the ones who should be pulling their hair out.

Hear, hear. Indeed, I’d add that the Democratic field is so strong, “second tier” candidates like Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson (and even, once in a great while, Joe Biden) are credible candidates with terrific platforms. It’s like having a sports team in which your bench is stronger than the other team’s starters.

The two Iowa debates brought this point home so clearly, it was painful. Watching the GOP field, one could easily go man by man, explaining why each Republican a) can’t win the nomination; and b) should only be allowed in the White House on a public tour. Watching the Democratic field, it was the same experience in reverse — each demonstrated a depth of knowledge and commitment the Republicans couldn’t come close to matching.

I don’t really have a point here, other than to say that as much as most Dems have one favored candidate over another, it’s probably worth pausing from time to time to appreciate the strongest field of candidates either party has produced in the modern political era.

Oh come on … haven’t you figured it out yet? The Bushies raped and pillaged the nation so bad, no reasonable Republican wants to even get close to the job, so the loons and whackos are the only ones that bothered to put their hats in. Overall, they figure they will leave the ugly job of cleaning up the mess to the Democrats for a few years, then come in braying about all the awful things the Democrats have had to do to get the job done, and how it hurt the economy and made people actually do something and even, horrible of horribles, sacrifice for the good of the country and the planet.

  • Wow, sounds like the Pro-Patriot Act, Pro-Global War On a Psychological State candidates on the Democratic side have a loyal supporter in CB.

    I am unimpressed.

  • A few years ago I watched the presidential debates. Bush came across as dumber than a sack of hammers yet the post analysis would have me believe he won the debates – and went on to win the election. Just saying…

  • “And by every measurement I can think of, the Democratic field is more serious, more credible, more knowledgeable, more consistent, more principled, and more dignified.”

    And that does not even get to the depth of the ‘team’ any of these Dem candidates would bring with them to run the government. The depth and quality and competence of the people behind the throne, those who will be in the cabinet positions, those who will support those in cabinet positions and the WH, is so much stronger on the Dem side than the GOP side (we have seen all too often these past 7 years how weak the GOP supporting cast is in both depth and competence). I have no doubt that whomever the Dem candidate is, that candidate will be selecting his or her team pretty much from the same pool of mostly talented people. True, some candidates may bring on more corporate shills or more uber-radical leftists than other candidates would, but overall the entire team will be much more competent and positive than anything any of the GOP candidates can bring to the table.

  • You know, that’s something I noticed several months back as well when talking about the race with my dad (who will be voting for a Dem — even Hillary!!! — for the first time ever).

    The Dems have a group of people who are, above all else, competent. Sure, Hillary has her past, Obama a lack of experience, Biden his foot-in-mouth disease, Kucinich looks like a troll doll and a Hobbit had a love child … so they’re not squeaky-clean-perfect.

    But they all have detailed policy proposals. They all are actually listening to what the American people want. They all are addressing real concerns. Most of them are quite likeable folks in person. And, most importantly, each of them appears extremely serious about governing.

    There’s not a single GOP candidate who has all of those things. Not. A. Single. One.

  • I have lately thought about the ideal candidate I’d vote for, the “best” on every issue according to my lights, but every time I did that, I was inexorably pulled to think about what the new House and Senate would interact with this great new president.

    Questions I have looking ahead. Let’s say that an honestly-elected president reflects the will of the majority of America. Does that “will” also affect who is elected to Congress? What if we have a House and Senate with slightly greater Democratic majorities than we have now? Wouldn’t the wrangling be the same? Would it be just as difficult to get progressive legislation passed with a new president (though it wouldn’t be vetoed if passed)? Will the Republicans give up their obstructive power which they put to such “good” or at least effective use with a Democratic president? And will an expanded Democratic Congress be more progressive than the current one?

    These questions tend to put a bit of a damper on my enthusiasm for a new administration because I fear the answer to some of them.

  • I am really curious about what Keyes did in the debate this time. Maybe C&L did a string of Keyes clips.

    What a strange man.

  • I don’t know why the Republicans think the Democratic field is so weak. They say the leading three candidates have so little experience.

    I suppose that is true, depending on how you define experience.

    However, if you claim the top three are weak on experience then you have to admit that the second tier has a ton of experience. It is hard to argue that Biden, Dodd and Richardson are not very experienced.

    If the Democrats decide that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are the better candidates then the Democrats are not picking from an inexperienced field. The democrats are picking who they think are the best from an EXPERIENCED field.

    On the other side, no long term senator, congressman or governor is running except McCain and Paul who the establishment don’t like.

  • Chopin has a point. Didn’t Bush look like a dangerous idiot in 2004? Didn’t Kerry look 1000% more competent?

    I don’t think it matters anymore if the presidential candidates are actually competent. Sure it matters to us, but half the country can be fooled into voting for an obviously stupid person, the last 2 elections prove that.

    We better not count any chickens yet.

  • no reasonable Republican

    LW, I thought these had died out in the Later Mesozoic? Certainly little tangible evidence of them still exists. Otherwise, what you say.

  • BTW, lest I be misunderstood, I agree that the Democratic presidential field is much more “solid” on policy vision than the Republican field, which seems to be composed of nitwits and weirdos.

  • But that is not what the MSM is reporting, of course.

    I think competence might be the most noteworthy difference. I just don’t trust any of the Republicans, and I’m not talking about policy, although admittedly, since I’m a liberal, I’m really turned off by their ideologies, and it’s hard to take it out of the equation. I just don’t think a single one of them is competent. I have no confidence in any of them to perform their jobs. They all seem like bumblers, like Bush. As someone once quipped about Alberto Gonzales, “You wouldn’t hire this guy to do your house closing, and he’s the Attorney General?” On the other hand, I think Chuck Hagel is competent. I’d hate what he was doing, but I’d be satisfied that he was pretty good at it.

    That said, I think probably Romney and Paul are above the others when it comes to competence. McCain has slipped badly. I think he’s over the hill. Past it. At one time he was competent.

    From reading comments over the last couple of months, I perceive a clear and strong bias against Hillary at this site – I do hope that doesn’t translate into a large block of liberals sitting out the election should she be the nominee, because that will almost surely usher in four more years of disaster, and we just can’t afford that.

  • Alan Keyes was an Ambassador? To where? Freedonia?

    The Republican candidates are dumb but dangerous.

    What’s wrong with Edwards taking public funding?

    I think Edwards would be the best president.

    Burma Shave

  • I think I’d vote for Edwards or Obama, but not Clinton — I just can’t hold my nose long enough. If she’s the Democratic presidential candidate, I’ll do a write-in of someone else, essentially making a non-vote.

  • jKap (#2): “I am unimpressed.” As are we, with you.

    As to this topic, “two different leagues”, I’d say it’s the difference between major league and short-season-A baseball (and if there were a professional league below that I’d cite that instead).

    Ever since the Republicans got infected with religion (which has no business being in politics, under our Constitution), they’ve abandoned the politics of policy (or even personality) comparisons and substituted the politics of fear and loathing.

  • It’s like having a sports team in which your bench is stronger than the other team’s starters.

    As Chopin was getting at, this only matters if the goal is to win at the game (i.e. govern effectively). Where the Republican field remains strong is in the appearance of strength, which is useful for selling the team’s trading cards (i.e. winning the election).

    LiberalWacko: “no reasonable Republican wants to even get close to the job, so the loons and whackos are the only ones that bothered to put their hats in.”

    Interesting theory, but I have to wonder which “reasonable Republican” would’ve run this year if the brand hadn’t been so tarnished. Assuming such a creature exists… who? Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were the reasonable Republicans until they started competing in the primary.

  • While Obama has his share of flowery, empty language, (slightly less than Clinton) when he DOES accidentally say something of substance, I have yet to disagree. Clinton, however tends to rail against the “outrageous” things Obama says. “Raid Pakistan if you know where Bin Laden is?! Heavens no!”

    Dale,
    I think it’s called “Myannmar Shave” for the moment.

  • I have to agree with you that it seems this way, but is it because the goper’s being offered up are a pathetic mix of the dregs? There is no candidate that can talk about the bush, can’t talk about the war, health, energy, housing, or science. If you look at who might run that isn’t insane, you don’t have a lot of options there either.
    If this continues, the indie candidate will take the cake with a rational platform. I have to disagree though about the demo candidates. I have noted that they take no position that folks can grab ahold of, or understand. Timid, non committal, or spin. Nothing concrete, like a new bridge.
    Where is Hillary’s universal health care? Edward’s Unions? Obama’s, well, what? These folks are politely refusing to discuss what is the most important thing they could discuss. Those few little concepts that are going to make voters say, ‘”that’s the person I am voting for”
    Have you noticed their complete lack of statements on returning to the rule of law and getting rid of the imperial power? It sure seems telling for what they do not discuss, considering how important those “little” things are to each of us.

  • The GOP has ceased to be anything like a governing party; their candidates are empty name brands intended to be used as tools for various cabals of thieves and liars to get into positions where they can lie and steal. The GOP base has lost any notion of membership in a secular democracy, and is longing for some flavor of authoritarianism (theocratic or plutocratic). It’s no surprise that the GOP field is unprepared for governing, since neither their voters nor their elites have any interest in it.

    This is the disease afflicting modern U.S. politics – one of our two major parties is intent on wrecking our constitutional system.

  • “It’s like having a sports team in which your bench is stronger than the other team’s starters.”

    Not only is the Democratic team’s bench stronger than the other team’s starters, the Democratic bench very well might be stronger (in terms of making a better president) than the Democratic starters.

  • Re: oldtree @ #18
    Have you noticed their complete lack of statements on returning to the rule of law and getting rid of the imperial power?

    In a word, yes.

    That is one reason why, to the chagrin of many right and left wing authoritarians, I am supporting Ron Paul. And I am not alone. A sizable block of Ron Paul’s support is coming from the “left” so to speak.

    All “idiots” according to many right and left wing authoritarians I suppose (or any other excuse to soak in the gutter and spit venom). But unlike them, I reserve my venom for the Bush Laden Cabal and their NeoCon Globalist/satanist masters.

    But I’ve had it with ideological solidarity at any rate. I favor leadership that will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic, period.

  • I’m with Chopin and RacerX. I was a Republican in 2000 before I knew what that meant. I was politically naive at the time. But after watching Bush debate Gore- (First debate I actually sat through) I was horrified and thought that nobody with half a brain could vote for a brainless oaf like him on purpose. I changed my registration the next day.

    The media still treated Bush like a serious candidate afterwards and acted like he was a legitimate candidate. They even pretended that his semicoherent patriotic ravings were valid inputs to the dialog.

    They still need ratings for the Republican debates even though nothing of substance will ever be addressed at these debates.

  • This post strikes me as unusually vapid cheerleading from the usually acute CB. Same goes for Drum–“the most liberal president since 1969”? I guess, if you squint. But it’s a dumb comparison; even Carter was far more liberal on economics, and far more conservative on social issues, than any mainstream Democrat of today.

    As for “likable,” I feel increasingly confident that if the general election is Clinton vs. Huckabee, Huck wins on that same criterion of likability. Hell, I like him better–though, no, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him; much as I dislike Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation Herself, I’d either vote for her or, more likely, sit it out. There’s no question but that she’d staff the government with more qualified and competent people, and the Supreme Court is too important to support any Republican in this era.

    The presidency is still won in the middle, and the Democrats need more of the middle than the other side does. Nominating the candidate that closes off half of the electorate, in a misguided attempt to recreate the ’90s, is a recipe for defeat.

  • Couple of comments. First response to oldtree (#18), who said: “Have you noticed their complete lack of statements on returning to the rule of law and getting rid of the imperial power?” You clearly didn’t hear the debate yesterday, because every candidate discussed this specifically and at great length (for a “debate”) and were cystal clear about rollign back the excesses of the bush admin.

    And to anney (#14): noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Talk to people from New York. Hillary will be a perfectly fine president. Please don’t throw your vote away. Listen to Steve and Kevin – this field is extraordinarily talented and deep, including Hillary.

  • Ah, so much is right here, even on opposing sides. The Dems only look good because Republicans are theocratic panderers and bugf–k crazy, uninterested in governing except to plunder. None of them has taken a strong stand against the pillars of Bushism–many have helped enable him–none have called for what I would like–an end to wars of choice, national healthcare, bringing back checks and balances in our government. And yet, I’ll vote for whichever of them gets the nod, no matter. Nothing is worse than the alternative and that’s what makes them look so good. Our standards are much lower in these sad days.

  • “Not only is the Democratic team’s bench stronger than the other team’s starters, the Democratic bench very well might be stronger (in terms of making a better president) than the Democratic starters.”

    Thanks for stating a little-stated fact, Ron. In fact, Chris Dodd is my favorite candidate, and I’m going to vote for him. While I think any of the “front-liners” would be okay – even Hillary – I do like many of the “bench” better.

    I’m one of those middle-aged college-educated women Hillary seems not to be doing well with. I don’t know the others’ reasoning, but my non-support of Hillary – though I will work for her and vote for her IF she’s the nominee – stems from a reluctance to revisit the vitriol of the Clinton years and the fervent desire to “move on” from the Bush/Clinton continuim, as well as a growing distaste for her campaign tactics. This Mark Penn/cocaine smear might have just about sealed the deal for me. And, of course, the “Bubba” question. While I adore Bill Clinton, I can see his strafing at his role of “First Gentleman” and doing embarrassing things that will get in the way of his wife’s administration.

    On the other hand, I do think the “Clinton-machine” does know how to handle rapid-response to the coming Republican smears.

  • Although I didn’t have to, I watched the Republican debate. What a bunch of morons.

    I was struck by the candidates’ agreement on several points:

    – They all believe in the Tax Fairy – lower taxes mean more revenue for the government.

    – Most of them expressed support for the goofy “Fair Tax” scheme which would replace the income tax with a national sales tax and allow us to disband the IRS. (Who would enforce collection of the “Fair Tax”? Hmmm.)

    – They all believe that the federal government spends too much money, especially on “entitlements.” But not nearly enough on the military.

    – They all want to make permanent the huge Bush tax cuts for the rich, and eliminate the “death tax,” which only the rich pay.

    – They all think that the tax laws are too complicated (true), and think that tax forms can be simplified to the one page that Giuliani held up (nonsense).

    – They all think that government participation in health care is evil, yet they all have (or did have) coverage from a government health care plan, which they cheerfully accepted.

    – The only candidates who set themselves apart from the others were (misspellings are intentional) Aln Kees, who is certifiably insane, and Rn Pual, who makes a lot of sense to me on foreign policy – the only Republican who made sense on any subject whatsoever. Pual’s economic theories are zany at best.

    Anyone on the Democratic “bench” would be preferable to any of those clowns.

    LiberalWacko @ #1: Just exactly who are the “reasonable Republicans” who might have run for president under better circumstances? Names, please.

  • Oh, and anney, wvng@24 is so right about NOT throwing your vote away by not voting for Hillary if she is the candidate. She isn’t THAT bad…and we do need a Democratic President.

  • Phoebes & wvng,

    No, I won’t vote for Hillary. Period. My one vote isn’t much but it’s all I’ve got, and I’ll cast it for someone I believe in, NOT Hillary Clinton The Democrats can win without my vote for someone I have absolutely no respect for.

    I think progressives will regret it if Clinton’s elected. I think she’ll continue the war in Iraq and will hold the threat of attack over Iran’s head, will continue the corporate rape of America, and certainly won’t restore the Constitutional balance of power to the three branches of government, won’t stop the torture or the other illegal actions of the Bush-agenda. At least she hasn’t indicated otherwise.

    So, no thanks.

  • Given that nine Republican senators have decided to retire this year, with another four on the “endangered species list,” along with nineteen thug Congresscritters retiring with another 12 on the “endangered species list,” there is every chance of a 60+ Democratic Senate and a veto-proof Congress, which means we can send the Republican droolers home for a 2-year vacation and get to work putting the country back together after they tried to tear it apart. It’s going to be like the 1936 elections all over again, with us pulling the Republican bacon out of the fire after 30 years of their mismanagement, so they can go back under their rocks and hate us for another 50 years like they did last time.

    As for the “reasonable Republicans”, that is an oxymoron.

  • No, I won’t vote for Hillary. Period. My one vote isn’t much but it’s all I’ve got, and I’ll cast it for someone I believe in, NOT Hillary Clinton The Democrats can win without my vote for someone I have absolutely no respect for. -anney

    I’m in complete agreement, 100%, and anyone who tries to tell you what to do with your vote other than what you believe is the right decision should seriously consider what makes democracy so great, especially those who say you’re throwing your vote away by not agreeing with them.

  • Anney, there were people in Florida just like you who passed on Al Gore in 2000. Consider the alternative! Sometimes the lesser of two evils is much better than the greater evil.

    Every vote counts. It’s a long time until election day. Let’s talk some more between now and then.

  • Go ahead and sit it out, anney. I’m sure you’ll still be able to sleep at night after we’ve bombed Iran, after thousands more people have lost their homes and insurance, and after Roe v. Wade is gone for good. Not all that much blood will be on your hands specifically, right?

    I can’t believe we’re actually still having this conversation eight years after Nader. I realize that it’s all talk for nearly all of you, but the rest need to get real. The GOP is very close to killing America, and if we don’t get some improved leadership, we can turn out the lights right now. But I guess being smug is more fun.

  • Okie

    Hillary Clinton is NO Al Gore.

    Mike B.

    Don’t worry about my sleep at night. Will YOU be able to sleep knowing that the new Clinton administration won’t give up those unitary executive powers, won’t stop the illegal surveillance of Americans, won’t restore America’s constitutional government, will stay in Iraq to steal their oil field development, will certainly bomb Iran if Hillary doesn’t think Iran’s doing what she wants, and certainly won’t disappoint corporate America?

    I’ll vote for Democratic representatives and Edwards or Obama, but, I repeat, not Hillary Clinton for president.

  • Go ahead and sit it out, anney. I’m sure you’ll still be able to sleep at night after we’ve bombed Iran…. -Mike B.

    Which is something Hillary gave Bush the green light to do. Everyone telling poeple how to vote needs to get off their party-before-country high horse and let people vote how they want to.

    This childish fearmongering and bullying is no better than the GOP thugs running the country now.

    I can sleep at night, Mike B., because I won’t vote for Hillary because I can’t in good conscience support someone who sent us into Iraq, rolled out the red carpet for Iran, and supported the Patriot Act.

    Not all that much blood will be on your hands specifically, right? -Mike B.

    How do you rationalize away the blood on Hillary’s hands? She was right there voting yea for all the approval and funding Bush needed to wage his misguided war. Is that the kind of bold leadership you want in the White House?

  • I might take a potshot at the won’t-vote-for-Hillarys, but in the coming election I don’t think it’ll matter. Any Dem candidate (even Hillary) will probably win handily, no matter how many proto-greens want to feed their egos by telling themselves how pure they are in not voting for her. (Oops! Took the potshot anyway. Sorry.)

    It’s going to be like the 1936 elections all over again, with us pulling the Republican bacon out of the fire after 30 years of their mismanagement, so they can go back under their rocks and hate us for another 50 years like they did last time.

    Well said. Here’s to 50 years of goopers in the wilderness.

  • Hi anney. Hillary was pretty eloquent in the debate yesterday about rolling back dubya’s constitutional excesses, including, as I remember, a very firm statement about torture.

  • OkieFromMuskogee: “Every vote counts”.

    Not really. If you live in a battleground state they count, assuming they’re not using a Diebold POS (which the Dems STILL haven’t gotten rid of, even after they failed every test they’ve been subjected to).

    That said, I always vote. But I do wish we could get rid of the electoral college and paperless voting.

  • Re: RacerX @ #38

    Ron Paul On The Abrams Report 10-10-07

    ABRAMS: “Do you want President Bush’s endorsement?”

    PAUL: “I don’t. I-I have. It has not crossed my mind because I know that it wouldn’t come.”

    ABRAMS: “But would you want it? If he said to you, if he said ‘I want to know. Do you want my endorsement?’”

    PAUL: “I would lose credibility.”

    ABRAMS: “So, you would say ‘no.’”

    PAUL: “I-I think that would hurt me. He wouldn’t offer it and I wouldn’t ask for it.”

    ABRAMS: “You would say ‘no’ to President Bush’s endorsement?”

    PAUL: “No, I would lose all credibility, because I’ve ran against his policies.”

  • JKap–
    Please don’t tell me you’ve fallen for the Ron Paul charade. The guy’s an empty suit with one legit policy (get the hell out of Iraq) and a bunch of clinically insane ones (the gold standard? really?).

    Don’t get me wrong — I won’t tell me people who to or not to vote for — it’s just not my style.

    But you seem way too smart to fall for Paul’s shtick. Dig a bit deeper and you’ll see what I’m typing about.

  • Don’t get me wrong — I won’t tell me people who to or not to vote for — it’s just not my style.

    Um … “me people” … ? Just ignore that typo, please.

    Well, unless you all want to be my peeps. Although that involves just sitting around playing video games, entertaining my son, and bitching about Bush, so keep that in mind.

    🙂

  • Any Dem candidate (even Hillary) will probably win handily, no matter how many proto-greens want to feed their egos by telling themselves how pure they are in not voting for her. (Oops! Took the potshot anyway. Sorry.) -jimBOB

    Well, I’m not a ‘proto-green,’ whatever that is. I didn’t vote for Ralph Nader, I didn’t think he was a good candidate and I do believe there is and was a difference between Bush and Gore, and I walked into the booth and proudly cast my vote for Al Gore. Unlike some, however, I will never disparage someone for their very personal choice and right to cast their vote for whomever they want, and I’m disgusted by how many so-called liberals, progressives, and Democrats disdain their peers for exercising their right as they see fit.

    All the high-and-mighty talk about Bush running roughshod over the Constitution goes right out the window when you start telling people how they should vote or what consequences they will face if they disagree with you.

    I’m nauseated whenever I see people advocating for peace and an end to war but demanding I support someone who has been a consistent vote for Iraq and expanding the war. I can’t accept the cognitive dissonance generated by being against this war and voting for someone who helped create it.

    Where the fuck are our principles?

  • I absolutely agree that the Dem field is vastly more qualified than the other side. There is not one Democrat I would feel uncomfortable about casting a vote for were they the nominee. There isn’t one Republican candidate who I could conceivably cast a vote for. Don’t trust them, agree with them or even like them (with the possible exception of Ron Paul; still wouldn’t vote for him).
    Again, I’d have no problem voting for any Dem candidate. I wish everyone would adopt that attitude and remember the alternative. Vote for the Dem nominee or risk further damage to the Constitution, the economy, your livelihoods, etc. In short your worst nightmares.

  • the Constitution goes right out the window when you start telling people how they should vote or what consequences they will face if they disagree with you.

    I don’t recall threating anyone for voting any particular way. But if somebody makes a dumb choice (and allowing, say, a President Rudy to take office because you think Hillary’s not pure enough for you would be a TERRIFICALLY dumb choice) I’ll not hesitate to point it out. And I don’t know what constitution you’re looking at, but there’s nothing in mine saying I can’t speak my mind when I talk about politics. (Nor you, either.)

  • Hillary vs. McRomnianabee: There’s a difference. Just not enough of a difference.

    That said, I can be comfortable in my (tentative) decision not to vote for Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation because I live in New York, and any Dem who doesn’t win here isn’t getting sworn in anyway. Were I still in Pennsylvania, where I grew up, or some place like Ohio or Florida, I’m not sure I would arrive at the same conclusion.

    I liked the “Nader-Swap” model from 2000; if need be, it would be good to resurrect that. The system is inefficient for expressing nuanced views, but we can make it a little better.

  • Leave anney alone, people. I can understand anney’s refusal to vote for Hillary. I don’t agree with it; I’ll vote for the democrat regardless of who it is. But anney has shown a very well-considered opinion on the matter.

    The fact is, if the Dems can’t persuade someone to vote for them, then they’re at fault if that person doesn’t vote for them. That was true back in 2000 when so many of you went hysterical about the Green party stealing “our” votes, and it is still true now. The democrats have to get it together and start putting out a stronger, more coherent message. They do seem to be solidifying, but they still have a ways to go. Until they get better at it, stop being so surprised or angry when people refuse to vote for Hillary.

    • Comments are closed.