Lessons for 2020 from 2012

[_Xenophon]

Thanks for sharing the article, honor. Although I found a lot to chew on and agree with in the article I think I have a few nitpicks.

This paragraph (that immediately followed some you highlighted that I think were really good) didn't quite track with me:

Trump has dominated the national conversation for 5 years. His flaws are known by all. The Democrats should want this to be a choice between competing, starkly different visions for the country. If it’s all about Trump, Democrats will lose.

First, I don't think the section I bolded is completely true. I reside in a place that went heavily for Trump in 2016 and interact daily with what I consider to be his key constituency. I'd argue that the message has not sunk as to the depth or breadth of this administration's corruption and toxicity. They aren't immune to fact either, they just exist in the same media vacuum that the author warns of in point 3 and/or they don't even perk their heads up until just before the election. Campaign messaging, particularly adverts, are one of the only ways to pierce through that bubble (even if the impact isn't huge). You may not be able to persuade a lot of these voters to switch sides but you might convince a few that they shouldn't pull the lever for Trump. As EA has suggested I also think there are large openings around his fitness office that are conversations that need to be had.

Second, I think the author may be overselling the influence the future Democrat candidate will have on steering the conversation away from Trump. in my opinion, the media is the primary problem on this topic and they don't seem to have learned any lessons. Whether it is just for the ratings boost or some sick fascination with the train wreck, the major outlets just can't seem to help but make it "all about Trump". I hope whoever the nominee is can break that cycle but I see no indication from the media that they plan to change their playbook following 2016. I think you can look the way most of the big players framed the Ukraine discussion (particularly early on) to still include some ominous allusions to the Biden's hand in the matter even after the conspiracy theory around them had been thoroughly shredded.

One of the points I haven't seen brought up that I actually thought the best was the OP's 2nd point about framing the economic discussion in a different way. I may be heavily biased by my anecdotal experience on the topic but I've found that by getting people to examine their own personal economic situation vs the Economy-at-large you can make some serious dents in that "positive" for Trump.

My own father is a pretty solid example. He is an aging white guy from the South whose financial solvency was heavily impacted by the Great Recession and who never really got back on top during the recovery years. Although that was due primarily to his lack of secondary education and being in a field that was moving at light speed to greater technological solutions he just didn't understand, it didn't stop him from pinning the blame on Obama. Trump was supposed to be the savior in this regard but so far hasn't delivered much. His wages are still stagnant, he isn't invested enough for this ginned up market to be any benefit to him and he actually saw his tax bill go up under the latest changes to the law. Trump is more vulnerable on this topic than you would think at first glance and I think any Democrat candidate that can both hammer home his unfitness for the office and pair that with a solid plan that resonates with people like my father has a solid chance even given all the incumbent advantages.

[_Markk]

In regards to politics...the collapse in discussion, on this forum, is and has always been objectivity towards the conservative point of view. There is none, if one starts a positive thread on Trump or a conservative topic it is instantly attacked along with the author...LOL...I think you are getting a little of what Bach, SG , and Ajax get when they start a thread .

That said, I understand the point of the article, at least I think I did, which is basically don't be a Romney. Don't make those same mistakes that he did.

There is no comparison in my view between what happened then, and what is happening now. Trump is not Obama, or Romney, and the field that the right had to pick from can't compare to the the choices they have today. You can argue Ron Paul would take a different path from the "swamp." But he was never a serious candidate as I remember.

The lefts choices, are choices that don't offer the stability of the status quo party of the Clinton/Obama era, but one of "what the hell is going on."

The older candidates that preached socialist ideologies, but lived fiscally conservative, and as moderates socially, are now facing a real conclusion that unless Biden or Amy gets in...who knows what will happen, which is the uncertainty I believe folks like you and EA appear to be dealing with. But Biden is a mess, and who knows about Amy...I am reading a chapter on her in a book on her currently, and she has huge baggage also...but might be the only status quo option, unless Joe does well in Nevada and South Carolina, that is if she can hang in.

I see absolutely no excitement here at all...I have tried several times to get folks here to expound on their choices and clarify the plan...and it is ducked like a free trip to China.

in my opinion... time is running out on this...you don't have time to go back and analyze anything given that you are pretty much stuck with what you have. I think Pelosi, maybe the face of the party, actually understands this, but is so snow blinded by Trump, she is not thinking about anything else.

There is a long way to go, and you have the media on your side, so while focusing on Trump, and waiting for something to stick to him might be your only hope, it will also be your bane if he keeps getting stuff done and keeps winning votes from blue states.

The only comparison I see from today and 2012, is that the right did not have any real excitement...but it stops there...you guys need to look at who is running and what they are saying...like...

"Open Borders, no immigration enforcement, basically shut down large corporations, give anyone who come here across an open border free medical, goverment funded abortion up to birth and possibly beyond, felons voting, legalize heroin, and cites like LA and San Francisco where the mentally ill and drug attics rule the streets."

They (current candidates) are also saying that Trump's economy is not really a strong economy...and then yesterday Obama came out and said the economy is strong because of him and Joe...like I wrote, get a plan. What is the motto printed on lefts hat besides "Stop Trump at all costs"

[_EAllusion]

Not great when you consider the board conservative presence to be a rather overt troll and a white supremacist...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sophisticated gerrymandering, a 24/7 news cycle in which echo chambers and confirmation bias undercut the very idea of nonpartisan fact-finding, the declining engagement of an increasingly cynical and poorly informed electorate, and the infusion of enormous amounts of invisible money into public life all endanger the lifeblood of popular government, the integrity of our electoral politics. The president’s likely acquittal in his impeachment trial, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating his corruption and obstruction of justice, shows how low the Republican Party has sunk into the swamp of hyper-partisanship.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/read ... ame=iossmf

The link above is well worth the read; it’s a former Buttigieg professor’s take on his student and some broader topics.

- Doc

[_Morley]

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/read ... ame=iossmf

The link above is well worth the read; it’s a former Buttigieg professor’s take on his student and some broader topics.

Excellent piece. Thank you.

[_schreech]

Not great when you consider the board conservative presence to be a rather overt troll and a white supremacist...

Its even sadder that he doesn't really seem to be able to distinguish trumpism from "conservatism" (shocking, I know). The unintelligent/ignorant seem to really like the cheeto-benito wannabe as long as he says the right things about abortion and people with brown skin...Im more conservative than the trumplican doofuses that post here.

[_MissTish]

Its even sadder that he doesn't really seem to be able to distinguish trumpism from "conservatism" (shocking, I know). The unintelligent/ignorant seem to really like the cheeto-benito wannabe as long as he says the right things about abortion and people with brown skin...Im more conservative than the trumplican doofuses that post here.

I see this quite a bit, as well as lifelong conservatives now labeled as RINOs by the Trump Cult (often it's RHINOs, because these people are idiots)

[_honorentheos]

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/read ... ame=iossmf

The link above is well worth the read; it’s a former Buttigieg professor’s take on his student and some broader topics.

Excellent piece. Thank you.

Agreed.

I wasn't sure what to expect going in from the title, or how it touched on the subjects of this OP. But it does in multiple ways.

First, it was nice to find an introduction to who Buttigieg is both as a human being as well as from someone equiped to comment on how political foundations without being a paid insider to his campaign. As noted in the OP article, it's important that candidates make voters aware of who they are, and what they represent in a positive way. I think Cam's link should be required reading and would be interested in similar sources on the other candidates.

To share a piece that resonated with me:

In one of the most powerful passages in Shortest Way Home, Buttigieg points out that there is no formula for resolving the tradeoffs required in government. Data cannot yield answers to questions about who should suffer, and how much, when competing policies are debated. Questions of efficiency must be weighed against considerations of mercy. Although Buttigieg concedes how tempting it is for officials to treat all issues as mere “technical problems,” as Robert McNamara did in Vietnam, Buttigieg insists that it is a mistake. “Elected officials earn our keep by settling moral questions, ones where there is no way to make someone better off without making someone else worse off.” William James observed that in any ethical dilemma, “some part of the ideal is butchered.” It is rare for elected officials even to admit that problem, let alone call attention to it, as Buttigieg does in his account of the promise of artificial intelligence to replace “the human function we call judgment.”
...it reflected a mind and understanding that I think is missing from political debate and discussion. That paragraph alone would be cause for me to want to look more closely at him.

But even more, his view that Democrats must be for something positive, and exort people to positive freedoms to do or be, rather than negative freedom "from" was a refreshing foundational view.

Thanks for sharing this, Cam.

[_honorentheos]

Hey Xeno,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I can't disagree with your point that the author in the OP article overstates the idea voters do seem to know Trump and, except for his base, have a nuanced view of him. I read it at the time as reflecting how many people I know who voted Republican who are not favorable toward Trump the man, but seem ok with Trump the political enabler of conservative policies while not being quite sure where to land when it comes to so many other aspects of his effect on the GOP overall. It's a touchy issue in a sense, given I think most traditional conservative voters I know seem to see opposition to Trump as shallow while engaging with those complaints in equally shallow ways. Yeah. It's a tough issue made all the more tough because he seems very capable of turning the political discourse into discord and resentment.

As to the other points in the article, I felt each was deserving of discussion but also wasn't intending to copy the entire thing here. I naïvely thought the subjects of interest would rise out of it with a little less promoting.

The economic reframing is certainly key to the election, even more that it not descend into capitalism v. socialism, in my opinion. I think that will be too coarse, too offensive to have the value your more logical suggestion would enable.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for sharing this, Cam.

You and Morley are more than welcome. I felt the article captured the spirit of the thread, in that Pete does a great job at finding the sweet spot in ethical politicking and is sorely needed. I believe EA noted that Pete reminded him of Obama, is the 2020 equivalent of an Obama, although I'm not sure anyone believes he can win the Presidency.

That said, Honor, the portion you quoted above stayed with me, too. The whole article is very readable and I hope people who want to understand Mayor Pete will take the time to read it.

- Doc