Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

1
I've watched Michelle Goldberg grow as a NYTimes analyst over the last couple of years.
IMHO, I think this is absolutely her best and most astute column to date:
Please, Pelosi, Fight Trump, Not the Squad
The House speaker is demoralizing people the Democratic Party needs.

Michelle Goldberg
By Michelle Goldberg
Opinion Columnist

July 15, 2019
For the last couple of weeks, the House Democratic leadership has been locked in an escalating battle with four left-wing freshmen congresswomen known as “the squad”: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.

It started with a dispute over funding for detention facilities at the border, with the squad voting against any new allocations for locking up migrants. There were ugly fights on Twitter, with Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff comparing Democrats who voted for one funding bill to segregationist Dixiecrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi belittled the squad to my colleague Maureen Dowd, saying that despite “their public whatever and their Twitter world,” they’re only four people without a following in Congress.

Ocasio-Cortez accused Pelosi of bullying women of color. A senior House Democratic aide gave an anonymous quote to The Hill ripping Ocasio-Cortez as a “puppet” of “elitist white liberals” who is “only a woman of color when it’s convenient.” It’s been a mess.

Donald Trump may have momentarily smoothed over these divisions this weekend, uniting Democrats in condemnation of his racist Twitter rant against the squad. But the fissures remain, and Pelosi needs to heal them, because this fight is alienating and demoralizing people whom the Democratic Party needs.

On Saturday morning, Pressley, Tlaib, Omar and their fellow freshman congresswoman Deb Haaland spoke on a panel at Netroots Nation, an annual conference for progressives, which this year was held in Philadelphia and drew around 4,000 people. Aimee Allison, the founder of She the People, an organization devoted to mobilizing women of color, moderated.

“For millions of us, these women of color in Congress represent generations of blood, sweat and tears, of struggle for us to have representation,” Allison said in her introduction, to cheers from the audience. “They represent the best of American democracy, and yet if you’ve read the news, they’ve faced attacks all year from the right wing and from Democratic Party leadership.” At this, there were scattered boos and hisses.

When I spoke to Allison later, she argued that by slamming the squad, Democratic leaders were dampening the enthusiasm of the women of color who were working their hearts out organizing in swing states. “The way that Nancy Pelosi’s words have landed, it’s caused anger, frustration, hurt, and I believe it is damaging to the coalition we have to build in order to win the White House,” she said.

Of course, there are plenty of people who believe it’s the squad itself that threatens Democratic hopes. The rift over the foursome is part of a bigger battle over how to take on Trump. Some on the left think that Democrats can imitate Trump’s base-first strategy, winning by inspiring new and infrequent voters with an uncompromising message. Others, usually farther to the right, point out that there are simply fewer self-described liberals than self-described conservatives in this country, particularly in the states that, however unfairly, decide Electoral College victory. That means Democrats need to appeal to a putative center, even at the cost of marginalizing the left.

Pelosi appears to endorse the centrist approach, and when it comes to vote-counting in the House, it makes sense. Ocasio-Cortez’s district will be Democratic no matter what; victories in purple districts gave Democrats their majority. Nevertheless, it’s a mistake to act as if only moderate swing voters hold the key to defeating Trump.

After all, if African-American turnout in 2016 had matched 2012’s, Hillary Clinton would most likely be in the White House. The number of votes cast for the left-wing spoiler Jill Stein exceeded Trump’s margin of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Nine percent of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 voted for Trump four years later, but 7 percent of 2012 Obama voters didn’t vote at all.

You can rail at the apathy and nihilistic demands for purity of people who hate Trump’s politics but didn’t vote for Clinton — I certainly have. But it is simply a fact that leftists, as well as the generally disaffected, need to be courted just as moderates do.

The advantage of winning over swing voters is that they essentially count twice, giving a vote to Democrats and taking one from Republicans. But the advantage of mobilizing new and infrequent voters is that it can be done with less danger of depressing the voters you already have.

These approaches aren’t mutually exclusive; Democrats probably need to balance them. But Pelosi shouldn’t be triangulating against the party’s impassioned young idealists to cultivate voters who are susceptible to right-wing demagogy. Rather than making Democrats seem more centrist, publicizing her contempt for the squad makes the party look weak and riven, and Trump, with his predator’s nose for vulnerability, has charged in to exploit the resulting discord.

Part of me understands the frustration of Democrats who find the squad maddening. Leftist criticism can be uniquely grating to liberals, especially the kind that treats disagreements over strategy as differences of morality. And some of the newcomers’ rhetoric has been stupid and irresponsible. Still, it’s Pelosi’s responsibility — not that of four insurgents who’ve been in Congress for only six months — to bring the party she leads together. She came to power with a promise to go after Trump, not the left. Maybe if she fulfilled it, Democrats would direct their rage at the president instead of at one another.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

2
I agree on this column. Pelosi needs to wake up and realize the centrist Dems policies platform will not win an election in 2020. I can see her backing Biden, is the male version of Hillary, and the Dems will have given the WH to Trump for a second term. What the Dems need is another FDR and I don't see Biden filling that role.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

3
Look what happened to "safe" candidates for President since Wilson.
1920 Cox /FDR Lost to Harding / Coolidge
1924 Davis / Bryan Lost to Coolidge / Dawes
1928 Smith (Al) / Robinson lost to Hoover / Curtis
1932 FDR / Garner beat Hoover / Curtis
1936 FDR / Garner beat Landon / Knox
1940 FDR / Wallace beat Wilkie / McNary
1944 FDR / Truman beat Dewey / Bricker
1948 Truman / Barkley beat Dewey / Warren AND Thurmond / Wright
1952 Stevenson / Sparkman lost to Ike / Nixon
1956 Stevenson / Kefauver lost to Ike / Nixon
1960 JFK / LBJ beat Nixon / Lodge
1964 LBJ / Humphrey beat Goldwater / Miller
1968 Humphrey / Muskie, and Wallace / LeMay lost to Nixon /Agnew
1972 McGovern / Shriver (Eagleton) lost to Nixon / Agnew
1976 Carter / Mondale beat Ford / Dole
1980 Carter / Mondale and Anderson / Lucey lost to Reagan / Bush
1984 Mondale / Ferraro lost to Reagan / Bush
1988 Dukakis / Bentsen lost to Bush / Quayle
1992 Clinton / Gore beat Bush / Quayle and Ross Perot /Stockdale
1996 Clinton / Gore beat Dole / Kemp and Perot / Choate
2000 Gore / Lieberman lost to Bush / Cheney
2004 Kerry / Edwards lost to Bush / Cheney
2008 Obama / Biden beat McCain / Palin
2012 Obama / Biden beat Romney / Ryan
2016 Clinton / Kaine lost to Trump / Pence.

Notice? "Safe" Democrats lost Every.Single.Time.

I didn't include the 1912 and 1916 elections Wilson won, but every one of the winners was either a strong outsider or a salty insider, like Truman and LBJ, both of whom inherited the Presidency via death.

The only peculiarity in this was that only one losing VP candidate ever went on to win the White House--FDR.

My point is: A "safe" candidate WILL, if history holds, lose to Trump. And Joe Biden is a "safe" candidate. I sure hope to hell if he gets the nod he breaks the pattern. The last REALLY edgy Democrat to lose was William Jennings Bryan--in his first run in 1896. After that, he was a "safe" insider, losing in 1900 and 1908.

It's similarly true among Republicans: Strong, edgy candidates win and "safe" ones lose (though Taft, Hoover, and Bush '41 appear to be exceptions). Also, some of their stronger, edgier candidates have lost, like Goldwater and McCain.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

4
YT, I generally agree with the above. Democrats lose when the field a "safe" candidate.

I disagree that Adlai Stevenson fits that pattern. Eisenhower was a very difficult candidate to beat. Perhaps there is no other quality more important than "trust" in a presidential race; Eisenhower had earned trust. Like him or hate him; an entire nation trusted Ike.

I do agree with the sentiments in the article that leads this thread. Pelosi needs to shepherd in the next wave of Democrats, not freeze them out.
Image

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

5
max129 wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:54 pm YT, I generally agree with the above. Democrats lose when the field a "safe" candidate.

I disagree that Adlai Stevenson fits that pattern. Eisenhower was a very difficult candidate to beat. Perhaps there is no other quality more important than "trust" in a presidential race; Eisenhower had earned trust. Like him or hate him; an entire nation trusted Ike.

I do agree with the sentiments in the article that leads this thread. Pelosi needs to shepherd in the next wave of Democrats, not freeze them out.
I agree, Eisenhower as "war hero" was almost impossible to beat. I wouldn't call the nominees "safe candidates". Humphrey was tainted with the unpopular Vietnam War and LBJ; McGovern wasn't the right candidate, too progressive for his time; Carter benefited from Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. Carter, Dukakis and Mondale against Reagan the practiced actor, not the right candidates to go against him.

Voters get tired of the same party running things and vote for the other party just because it's not the guy in the WH or the ones on Capitol Hill.


My maternal grandmother who was from Chicago loved Al Smith and Adlair Stevenson.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

6
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:08 pm
max129 wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:54 pm YT, I generally agree with the above. Democrats lose when the field a "safe" candidate.

I disagree that Adlai Stevenson fits that pattern. Eisenhower was a very difficult candidate to beat. Perhaps there is no other quality more important than "trust" in a presidential race; Eisenhower had earned trust. Like him or hate him; an entire nation trusted Ike.

I do agree with the sentiments in the article that leads this thread. Pelosi needs to shepherd in the next wave of Democrats, not freeze them out.
I agree, Eisenhower as "war hero" was almost impossible to beat. I wouldn't call the nominees "safe candidates". Humphrey was tainted with the unpopular Vietnam War and LBJ; McGovern wasn't the right candidate, too progressive for his time; Carter benefited from Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. Carter, Dukakis and Mondale against Reagan the practiced actor, not the right candidates to go against him.

Voters get tired of the same party running things and vote for the other party just because it's not the guy in the WH or the ones on Capitol Hill.


My maternal grandmother who was from Chicago loved Al Smith and Adlair Stevenson.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what a "safe" candidate is. I remember 1968 as the first election where I had any kind of clue.
What we saw happen in 2016 to Bernie Sanders by the DNC was NOTHING compared to what happened to McCarthy and McGovern in 1968! Hubert Humphrey was NOT the pick of the rank and file of the party but of the same kind of leadership we see today. He didn't run in a single primary. He didn't enter the race until April of 1968. Yet, after RFK was shot in June, the party powers "picked" him.
The streets of Chicago were filled with demonstrations because it was clear the leaders were forcing a pro-war nominee onto the ticket. Humphrey had been a loyal defender of Johnson's war policies and that actual activists who had helped McCarthy make a strong showing in New Hampshire and ultimately drove LBJ out, were CUT OUT of the process so another war defender would replace LBJ at the head of the ticket.
Hizzoner, Mayor Richard Daley, sent the police to break up the demonstrations (which embarrassed Daiey) and it got violent. To cover it up, 8 leaders of the demonstrations were arrested and charged with incitement. Huey Newton was later tried separately but the 7 became known as The Chicago Seven and included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden.

While George McGovern had stepped to be surrogate for RFK, inside the convention hall chaos broke out. Sen. Abe Ribicoff, nominating McGovern, said with McGovern as President "We won't have Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago!" Daley went berserk, trying to get to the Senator and clearly mouthing obscenities.

Despite ALL this, the Party STILL played their byzantine rules games and Humphrey was nominated. His campaign appeared to have little chance of catching Nixon until late when he FINALLY abandoned supporting the War and came out against it. But it was too late. Too late to catch Nixon, too late to make up the votes lost to George Wallace. But he was the "Safe" candidate, unlike McCarthy and McGovern.

McGovern had great policy ideas, but was about as charismatic as an old, wet dishrag. He was perhaps the least "safe" of the losers. Nixon didn't NEED Watergate to beat McGovern, but his use of it showed just how much better McGovern would have been.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

7
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:08 pm
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:08 pm
max129 wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:54 pm YT, I generally agree with the above. Democrats lose when the field a "safe" candidate.

I disagree that Adlai Stevenson fits that pattern. Eisenhower was a very difficult candidate to beat. Perhaps there is no other quality more important than "trust" in a presidential race; Eisenhower had earned trust. Like him or hate him; an entire nation trusted Ike.

I do agree with the sentiments in the article that leads this thread. Pelosi needs to shepherd in the next wave of Democrats, not freeze them out.
I agree, Eisenhower as "war hero" was almost impossible to beat. I wouldn't call the nominees "safe candidates". Humphrey was tainted with the unpopular Vietnam War and LBJ; McGovern wasn't the right candidate, too progressive for his time; Carter benefited from Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. Carter, Dukakis and Mondale against Reagan the practiced actor, not the right candidates to go against him.

Voters get tired of the same party running things and vote for the other party just because it's not the guy in the WH or the ones on Capitol Hill.


My maternal grandmother who was from Chicago loved Al Smith and Adlair Stevenson.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what a "safe" candidate is. I remember 1968 as the first election where I had any kind of clue.
What we saw happen in 2016 to Bernie Sanders by the DNC was NOTHING compared to what happened to McCarthy and McGovern in 1968! Hubert Humphrey was NOT the pick of the rank and file of the party but of the same kind of leadership we see today. He didn't run in a single primary. He didn't enter the race until April of 1968. Yet, after RFK was shot in June, the party powers "picked" him.
The streets of Chicago were filled with demonstrations because it was clear the leaders were forcing a pro-war nominee onto the ticket. Humphrey had been a loyal defender of Johnson's war policies and that actual activists who had helped McCarthy make a strong showing in New Hampshire and ultimately drove LBJ out, were CUT OUT of the process so another war defender would replace LBJ at the head of the ticket.
Hizzoner, Mayor Richard Daley, sent the police to break up the demonstrations (which embarrassed Daiey) and it got violent. To cover it up, 8 leaders of the demonstrations were arrested and charged with incitement. Huey Newton was later tried separately but the 7 became known as The Chicago Seven and included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden.

While George McGovern had stepped to be surrogate for RFK, inside the convention hall chaos broke out. Sen. Abe Ribicoff, nominating McGovern, said with McGovern as President "We won't have Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago!" Daley went berserk, trying to get to the Senator and clearly mouthing obscenities.

Despite ALL this, the Party STILL played their byzantine rules games and Humphrey was nominated. His campaign appeared to have little chance of catching Nixon until late when he FINALLY abandoned supporting the War and came out against it. But it was too late. Too late to catch Nixon, too late to make up the votes lost to George Wallace. But he was the "Safe" candidate, unlike McCarthy and McGovern.

McGovern had great policy ideas, but was about as charismatic as an old, wet dishrag. He was perhaps the least "safe" of the losers. Nixon didn't NEED Watergate to beat McGovern, but his use of it showed just how much better McGovern would have been.
Mine was 1964, Barry Goldwater won the Rep nomination at the convention that took place at The Cow Palace (home of the Grand National) in Daly City, CA just south of SF. It was local so the SF TV stations carried it. And I do remember the 1968 Dem Convention in Chicago, the Vietnam War overshadowed everything. Nixon lost in 1960 to JFK and then in 1962 he lost the governors race in his home state CA to very popular Pat Brown (Jerry's father). After that he announced his retirement from politics at a press conference with the famous phrase, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." Six years later he's back with the slogan, "Nixon's the One" and "I have a plan" to end the Vietnam War, but he said he couldn't reveal it.

RFK would have been the perfect candidate in 1968, but he was gone. Humphrey tried but the convention and the Vietnam War damaged Democrats. In 1972 I voted for McGovern, I had been a McCarthy supporter.

Conventions then were more spontaneous, now they are highly stage managed events. They bring in Hollywood types who are used to staging award events and it plays just like a soap opera. The Call of the States to count delegate votes is a formality, not in the past.

The decision sciences and polling have entered the scene. More thorough vetting of candidates is now done, polling and focus groups to test electability and issues are proforma. And there are a lot more journalists out there investigating candidates and writing stories. It's a different world.

Biden has admitted that he might not win the Dem nomination, a year from now a lot could happen and a different nominee surfaces.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Michelle Goldberg NAILS It!

8
I was 17 in November of 1972, so I couldn't vote until the following November, an off-year election (I think Carey was running for NY governor that year--NY is, like NJ, and off-cycle, and I still lived in NY, my home state). My first Presidential election was 1976 and voted for Carter.

Yes, RFK would have been perfect, and would have CRUSHED Nixon.

My eldest brother went to college at Lake Forest in the 1960's, so he went to anti-war demonstrations in Chicago, but, luckily was working away from there for the summer.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests