Showing posts with label Political Figures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Figures. Show all posts

October 17, 2019

"I Can't Make You Love me" Lindsey Graham Song For Trump


song by Bonnie Raitt


       
"Lindsey Graham would like to stay in the Middle East for the next 1,000 years with thousands of soldiers fighting other people's wars. I wanna get out of the Middle East. I think Lindsey should focus right now on Judiciary, like the Democrats — the do-nothing Democrats as I call them because they're doing nothing, they're getting nothing done. They're not getting USMCA done between Canada, the United States and Mexico. They're getting nothing done." 
— President Trump
The other side: Graham, usually a loyal Trump ally, reprised his condemnation of the president's decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria on Wednesday, expressing disbelief at comments he made earlier about U.S.-allied Kurdish forces not being "angels."
Graham tweeted that if Trump "continues to make such statements this will be a disaster worse than President Obama's decision to leave Iraq."
  • "If the President did say that Turkey's invasion is no concern to us I find that to be an outstanding — an astonishing statement which I completely and totally reject. ... If you're not concerned about Turkey going into Syria why did you sanction Turkey?"
  • He said later: "I will do anything I can to help him, but I will also become President Trump's worst nightmare. I will not sit along the sidelines and watch a good ally, the Kurds, be slaughtered by Turkey... This is a defining moment for President Trump. He needs to up his game."
Worth notingTrump's comments about Graham's desire to keep thousands of troops in the Middle East come days after he authorized sending 3,000 more U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in order to combat the threat from Iran.
Axios

September 6, 2019

Will Trump Win? Let's Apply Math Without Love Because if You Love a Politician, U Will Make It Loose



As a Store Manager in several stores, in different areas, my mantra came from my first DM. "Love them Adam, but Check Them!" The stores in which I was a superstar I had followed that Mantra. In the ones I could have done so much better, I didn't check because I love them and from that came to trust (bad). This rule applies to politicians as well. {Adam}



Editorial, Adam Gonzalez
Many heads got scratched this week when President Trump doubled down on his erroneous claim that Alabama had been in the path of Hurricane Dorian.
Apparently relying on a map that warned of high winds, or another showing hypothetical path for the storm, the president over the weekend insisted Alabama was "in the crosshairs." At midweek, sitting in the Oval Office, he held up a map on which someone using a marking pen had ballooned the area of actual hurricane threat to include Alabama.
The question had to be asked: Wouldn't it be enough to be worried about Florida, Georgia and the rest of the Southeastern coast without dragging in Alabama — a state outside the current danger zone?
Perhaps. But in seeking to understand the moment it was tempting to observe that Alabama is arguably the cornerstone of the president's base of support in seeking a second term.  
While 17 states have consistently shown the president at 50% job approval or better, according to Gallup, Alabama is one of just three states where Trump's approval has often topped 60% since Inauguration Day. According to the Morning Consult tracking poll, Trump's approval is 18 points positive in West Virginia and 21 in Wyoming. In Alabama, it is 26, and Alabama has more votes in the Electoral College than those two other states combined.
Do such things matter to a president seeking reelection? They just might, especially when that president is struggling to raise his public approval nationwide.
The president is setting his course on issues, from guns and trade to immigration and abortion, and his stances on those make it clear he is playing to his base. All politicians want as many voters as they can get, and all begin their calculations by relying on a core of support. But in American presidential politics, the ultimate question is not just how many voters one has but where they live, because in American presidential politics, the Electoral College rules. While much time and attention is devoted to tracking the president's approval rating nationwide, and his supporters can be found in any part of the country, all that matters in the end is the president's standing state by state. Examining trends in individual states offers a clearer picture of Trump's reelection prospects a little more than a year from now — and a rationale for his strategy. It also highlights the degree to which the country's issue conflicts and partisan rivalries are defined by differences in population density.
Where the urban- and inner-suburban metro areas are politically dominant, Democrats prevail; otherwise, the president and the Republican Party hold sway. And where the city-country balance is closer to even, we have a swing state.
That sets the landscape for 2020 — with President Trump hoping to again win the 30 states he won in 2016 with 306 votes in the Electoral College. That gives him a margin of 36 Electoral College votes, because it takes 270 to win for a majority 538 electors who make up the Electoral College.
So how's he faring in the effort to do it again?
When being "popular" isn't the answer
It's nice to win the popular vote, and the popular vote usually underscores the final decision. Not always, though. See 2000 and 2016. In reality, the national popular vote has no role in the choice of the president.
That choice is determined by the Electoral College, guided by the popular vote in each state. (Note: If no one gets a majority in the Electoral College, the choice is made in the House of Representatives, where, for just this one decision, each state gets one vote.)
With this in mind, defining Trump's base requires both defining his voters and counting the states where they will cast at least a plurality of the 2020 vote.
In 2016, Trump won those 30 states with 306 electoral votes, though there were two "faithless electors" in Texas who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, leaving Trump, technically, with 304.
Looking ahead to 2020, though, Trump looks to only be able to count on a little more than half of those states to continue backing him, come what may. Trump's approval rating averaged just 40% nationwide in 2018, according to Gallup, and his approval rating was above 50% in 17 states — all of which he had carried in 2016.
The Trump 17 are: Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming.
These numbers are based on the Gallup tracking poll that takes soundings 350 times a year. It is generally corroborated by the readings done by Morning Consult. Although Morning Consult had sub-50 readings for Trump in Utah at several points in the first two years, it was above 50% this summer, as are Texas and Missouri.
In the first weeks of 2019, during the government shutdown, both Gallup and Morning Consult found Trump dipping below 50% by a point or two in some of the larger states in this core. But in each, the rating quickly snapped back above 50% when the shutdown ended and has remained there since.
These 17 states then would have to be regarded as the purest definition of Trump's geographic base, the firmest foundation for his reelection. Beyond that, they easily provide most of the senators who make Republican Mitch McConnell the Senate majority leader. The current Senate has 53 Republican members, 31 of whom hail from those same 17 states.
As a measure of how American politics has changed, consider that there were 15 Democrats from these states when Bill Clinton became president. One Democrat from that era, Richard Shelby of Alabama, is still around, but he switched to the GOP in 1994 right after that party became the Senate majority. He symbolizes how populists from largely rural states in the South and West have migrated from one party to the other and become the hard base for Trump.
It has long been noted that Trump, a former Manhattan socialite and billionaire, makes an odd champion for these voters and these regions of the country. But his willingness to take up their causes has largely won them over. And in 2016, his emergence from a field of 17 candidates to win the Republican Party nomination installed him atop a party that now commands the loyalty of rural America as never before.
The more rural, the more pro-Trump
Within the states, and across the national map, party loyalties can be perceived as a function of population density.
"All the social changes that have pulled cities and rural areas apart since the 1930s have come to be expressed in the party system," writes Jonathan Rodden, a political scientist at Stanford University. "American geographic polarization has emerged in large part because our political institutions have created a strict two-party system that has gradually come to reflect a set of social cleavages that are highly correlated with population density."
And Will Wilkinson, vice president for research at the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank, has added: "The filtering/sorting dynamic of urbanization has produced a lower-density, mainly white [rural] population that is increasingly uniform in socially conservative personality, aversion to diversity, relative disinclination to migrate and seek higher education, and Republican Party loyalty." 
Trump's most loyal 17 states have in common a relatively low population. The two largest, Tennessee and Missouri, rank just 16th and 18th among all states in the Census Bureau estimates for 2018. Each has two major cities that vote Democratic, but the urban characteristics of Nashville and Memphis, and St. Louis and Kansas City, are not enough to counterbalance the exurban and rural characteristics of those states overall.
More typical of the group in the population in Kansas. With a little under 3 million residents last year, and ranking 35th nationally, Kansas is still more populous than half the rest of the 17 states. Next in size is West Virginia with 1.8 million. Five states among the 17 qualify for only a single seat in the U.S. House: Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming.
A glance at these 17 pro-Trump states on a map makes them appear to dominate the landscape, and indeed they do in a strictly geographic sense. They comprise some of the largest expanses of sparsely inhabited land America has to offer. That impression only strengthens when you add Texas, a megastate where Trump has not always been above 50% approval in the Gallup but has never been far from it. While the state is becoming more competitive, few doubt it will be in the president's column again in 2020.
Tacking on Texas also greatly expands the footprint of Trump's hardcore states in the Electoral College. Without Texas, their collective contribution is only 102 electoral votes. With Texas, they reach 140, just over half of what Trump will need to secure a second term.
On the contrary
The other side of the coin in the Gallup approval map is the group of 16 (plus the District of Columbia) states where Trump's approval was below 40% in his first two years in office. Here again, the Morning Consult tracking data generally corroborate these findings and extend them into 2019.
Not surprisingly, these 16 have a lot more people than the core Trump 17, as the below-40 states include three of the nation's most populous five (California, New York, and Illinois) and nine of the top 22. That translates to 201 electoral votes or nearly three-fourths of what a Democrat might need to win.
It is tempting to say this is the built-in base of Trump's opponent, whoever that may be.
But that still leaves a whopping 235 electoral votes in the 17 states that are not distinctly pro-Trump or con, the states where he has been at 40% to 49% approval (again, relying primarily on the Gallup tracking).
In 2016, Trump was able to pick off just enough states in the Great Lakes region — starting with pivotal Ohio — to win despite losing the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. He could win again, even losing by millions in the popular vote, if he can reassemble the same bloc of states — or close to it.
There seems little point in campaigning at all in the deeper blue states such as California, New York and Illinois. While millions of voters live there, the president has little or no chance of translating their votes into the electoral votes he needs to supplement his base in the rest of the country.
The president will campaign in the states where he has been polling in the 40s, including previously reliable blue states he shocked the world by winning in 2016 (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin). He won those three by fractions of a percentage point each (just under 78,000 votes aggregate total).
All three states elected Democratic governors in 2018. But the president maintains a loyal Republican base in each and will again appeal to non-Republicans who found him the better choice in 2016. He hopes they hold and lift him again next year.
Short Center Editorial by the Publisher, Adam Gonzalez:


 One of the problems with our voting system is One the Electoral vote and Second, the voters falling in love with politicians like if they were movie stars. These politicians are as honest as the best or worse actor in reading their lines and presenting something very far from what they are. However, our system is political and we have to vote for politicians but does not say you have to love them? I think it started with FDR and it got cemented with the short life of President John Kennedy. But because 17 states fell for Trump, a good for nothing New Yorker who never worked a day in his life but he hit the right tone with the people in 17 states that thought he was better than Hillary who only the ones closest to her loved her ( all 12 of them) and that was not many. Now we have people infatuated with the man least likely to run and win against a sleeky snake-like Trump. That is Biden of coarse. He never got the message that the time with Obama was going to be the end of the White House career and he had a lot of accomplishments and many loving fans. But loving Biden means you' re not thinking straight. Why is that? Simple! Most of us ignore the shortcoming of the people we love.
 On the other hand that is not the way, Trump is going to be feeling and treating him as such, which means Trump again might win. Even with a good candidate that knows how to take it but better yet to dish it out without looking hateful this person will have a tough time not because they won't be millions of voters ahead like Hillary(over 3million over Trump yet she lost) but is the College Electoral system in which states with 3 thousand people have more say than NYC, California or Washington state with its millions of residents and the drivers of the economy of this country. 
My point is simple: Please don't fall in love for Biden, He will loose and don't fall in love with any of the other. You need to get to know the strong political points of Trump, which is simple to see and not many and try to find someone to kick those on this bold head (sorry for the bold head comment guys, I like them very much). 
                                                                    
                                  Image result for I like you but don't love you

 Needless to say, the president will emphasize that strategic handful of "purple states" that have swung back and forth in recent presidential cycles. Most important are the ones he captured last time: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona and Iowa. But he will also be looking to compete in swing states he lost to Hillary Clinton: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire.
With all this predictable effort, however, Trump will not neglect the 17 base states that have stood by him most loyally so far. And he should find it natural enough to enlarge this group with the states that have at least kept him near 50% approval through his first 32 months in office.
These include the megastates of Texas and Georgia (No. 2 and No. 8), plus Louisiana and Indiana. He has held rallies in these states and stressed their issues and concerns from Inauguration Day forward. And he knows that without all these states on board, all other strategies and outreach will not be enough to ensure a second inauguration.

June 29, 2019

The Perfect Ticket To Beat Trump As per this Blog But More Importantly The NY Times






All along I have been feeling it but on the debate I saw these two candidates up in the stage and I imagine Tump with either on of them. He will be toast!🔥Adam




The big question going into Thursday night’s debate was whether Joe Biden, the clear front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, would stumble.

That turned out to be the wrong one. The right question was whether he had sufficient vigor in his stride.

And the answer came in watching Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg — two of the event’s standout performers — run articulate and impassioned circles around him.

Biden was O.K. Not bad, not good: O.K. He didn’t crumble under some tough interrogation from moderators — about his vote for the invasion of Iraq, for example — and occasional attacks from his rivals onstage.  

But in his determination to prove how coolheaded he could be, he frequently turned his temperature down too low. In his insistence on not getting tangled in grand promises or lost in the weeds, he too often kept to the side of the field.

At one point, when candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believed that crossing the border without documentation should be a civil rather than criminal offense, his gesture was so tentative and ambiguous that one of the moderators, José Díaz-Balart, had to follow up: Was he indicating his assent or seeking permission to make a comment?

That was a metaphor for his whole night.

Other candidates demanded that America march forward. Biden kept looking backward. He repeatedly alluded to his decades of experience and even more pointedly reminded voters of his eight-year partnership with President Barack Obama, a towering and popular figure in the Democratic Party. While Bernie Sanders pledged a revolution, Biden promised a restoration. 

But the debate brought into vivid relief the shortcomings of his candidacy and the risks of graduating him to the general election.

When you’ve been in politics and in Washington as long as he has — 36 years in the Senate, plus eight as vice president — there are votes from eras much different from the current one, controversial positions galore and mistakes aplenty. All of these were ammunition used against him on Thursday night, most electrically when Harris pressed him to defend his opposition to busing to integrate schools.

Harris made it personal, telling him that she got the education she did because of busing. Biden said that he hadn’t been opposed to busing so much as in favor of local decision-making, and he thus left himself open to her righteous response: Did he not think that the federal government should swoop in to remedy obvious racial injustice?

“That’s why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act,” she said. “Because there are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.”

One of these two candidates was in much better sync with Democratic voters right now, and that candidate was Harris, a black woman who, at 54, is more than two decades younger than Biden, who is 76. The only candidate on the stage older than he: Bernie Sanders, 77.

And the sense of a generational divide was acute, partly because Buttigieg, 37, and Eric Swalwell, 38, made sure to highlight it. At the very start of the night, Swalwell noted mischievously that Biden had long ago stressed the importance of passing the torch, and Swalwell exhorted Democrats to do precisely that, saying “pass the torch” so many times that Díaz-Balart asked Biden, “Would you like to sing a torch song?” Biden then rattled off a few canned remarks about the importance of education.

Biden and Sanders stood at the lecterns in the center of the stage, their prize for having significantly higher poll numbers than the others. They were supposed to be the pace setters. 

But they receded more than they popped. Maybe that was a function of familiarity. I couldn’t detect any difference between Sanders now and Sanders four years ago: The mad gleam, bad mood and hoarse-from-yelling voice were all the same. A screenwriter friend of mine emailed me midway through the event to say that Sanders resembled “a very angry chess player in Washington Square Park in an undershirt and madras shorts in the summer heat.” He did indeed look steamed.

Buttigieg didn’t. He has this way — it’s quite remarkable — of expressing outrage without being remotely disheveled by the emotion, of taking aim without seeming armed, of flagging grave danger without scaring the pants off you. He’s from some perfect-candidate laboratory, no?

And nobody onstage spoke with more precision and shrewdness, though Michael Bennet came close a few times. Buttigieg said that the God-garbed Republican Party, in its treatment of migrants, “has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.” It wasn’t just a dig; it was a deft reminder of his public fight with Mike Pence over Pence’s vilification of L.G.B.T. people like Buttigieg.

On the subject of health insurance, Buttigieg said that sick people “can’t be relying on the tender mercies of the corporate system.” He spoke of China “using technology for the perfection of dictatorship.” Phrases like these came like candies from a Pez dispenser — colorful, sweet and one after the other.

And when Buttigieg was confronted with questions about the recent police shooting of a black man in South Bend, Ind., where he is mayor, and asked why the police force wasn’t better integrated, he admitted, bluntly: “Because I couldn’t get it done.” He didn’t make excuses, instead recognizing that between African-Americans and white police officers, “There’s a wall of mistrust, put up one racist act at a time.”

Harris had a fire that Buttigieg lacked, and it was mesmerizing. She challenged Biden not just on busing but on sloppy recent comments of his that seemed affectionate toward segregationists. She picked apart Trump’s boasts of a spectacularly booming economy, telling the right number of right anecdotes at the right time.

And she mixed strength with warmth and even humor. As candidates shouted over one another in a lunge for microphone time, she found a cranny of oratorical space in which to land a good line. “Hey, guys, you know what?” she said. “America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.” It neatly pegged men as compulsive interrupters — a leitmotif of the previous night’s debate — while flying a feminist flag less strenuously than Kirsten Gillibrand, at the lectern beside hers, did. 

Imagine a Harris-Buttigieg ticket, and not only what a wealth of poise but what a double scoop of precedents that would be. Plenty of people on Twitter on Thursday night were doing precisely that.

Plenty more will do so in the coming days, and they should leaven that fantasy with a reality check about how far to the left Harris in particular has moved. She was one of just two candidates on Thursday night who said that she wanted to do away with private health insurance. Sanders was the other. And that could be a general-election problem for her, as it could for Elizabeth Warren, who took that same position the night before.

But I write now in praise of a commanding performance that easily overshadowed Biden’s, with his herky-jerky delivery and his reflexive glances in the rearview mirror. Elections, according to all the political sages, are about the future. Biden didn’t seem to be pointed in that direction, and he didn’t demonstrate any sense of hurry to get there.


June 6, 2019

CNN Says There Are Two Democrats with The Highest 2020 Upside! Not Biden nor Sanders


 

Image result for kamala harris and pete buttigieg
 Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg
       

Chris Cillizza, Editor at Large


Washington (CNN)It's easy to look at a poll of the 2020 Democratic primary race and conclude that Joe Biden is the front-runner, with Bernie Sanders as the alternative if the former vice president falters.

It's easy because it's, broadly speaking, true! In the new CNN-SSRS national survey, Biden is at 32% in the hypothetical Democratic 2020 primary, while Sanders is in second with 18%. None of the other 20+ candidates receives double-digit support.

That's where the race is TODAY. And it may be where the race winds up. But if you dig just a little bit into the numbers, there are two candidates not named "Biden" or "Sanders" who jump out as potentially strong bets to make noise in the contest: Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.  

Here's why: The California senator and the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, have two specific things going for them:

1) They are performing solidly in national polling
2) Lots and lots of Democrats still know nothing about them

Let's start with No. 1. In the CNN poll, Harris takes 8%, good for third place behind Biden and Sanders. Buttigieg receives 5%, putting him in a tie for fifth with former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke. Now, those aren't amazing numbers -- especially when you consider that Biden is in the 30s in terms of support.

BUT, that brings me to No. 2. Asked whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidates, 40% said they had "never heard of" Mayor Pete, while 29% said they had never heard of Harris. Just 5% hadn't heard of Biden (Sidebar: Who are you people????) while 3% had never heard of Sanders.

Why does that matter, you ask? Because numbers like those suggest that both Buttigieg and Harris still have lots of room to grow, or in the parlance of the NBA Draft -- coming June 20! -- they have major upside. Or high ceilings. 
 
All of which simply means that they are doing pretty well in securing support among those who know them, but the real key is that lots and lots of people don't really know them yet. Biden and Sanders are known commodities to the electorate. People know them and have opinions about them -- opinions that are unlikely to change in any drastic way. Buttigieg and Harris still have the chance to introduce themselves -- in any way they want -- to tons of Democratic voters between now and next February.

And both candidates will have the money to do that. Harris raised more than $12 million in the first three months of 2019 and Buttigieg brought in $7 million. That cash haul will pay for direct mail pieces and TV ads that will ensure that every Iowa and New Hampshire voter will know who these candidates are (and what they believe) before the time comes to vote.

February 21, 2019

The Burn is Already Passed, The Times Cold and Bernie Should Know His Time Came and Left



 
Image result for water hose


Columnist


certain announcement this week reminded me that for a brief, happy time quite a few years ago, my wife and I rented an apartment in Washington’s grand Kalorama neighborhood. With its high ceilings, wide staircase and gleaming wood floors, our building evoked its origins in the heady days of a brand-new American empire, an emerging global force, an awakening industrial giant. Yet there was a creeping shabbiness to the place that made it affordable for the likes of us.
Think of it as a museum of lost grandeur, populated mostly by Formerly Important People. This small but distinctive slice of the capital’s demography finds its lives of power and purpose whittled to the scale of a pension and gravitates to such buildings. Accustomed to congressional suites or the large offices of undersecretaries, the FIPs require big walls to hold all their photographs of younger selves in historic company. They need ample space to display little gifts received as tokens of gratitude from nations that no longer exist.
In the overheated entry, I occasionally encountered a brusque little man in his 80s at the mailboxes. He had a shock of white hair and the air of a person who expected to be recognized, if only so that he could be annoyed at the intrusion. On perhaps our third encounter, when I glimpsed more than the back of his head, it hit me: Eugene McCarthy. I murmured, “Hello, Senator,” and he grumbled something in return. 
Not 30 years earlier, this same man had occupied the electrified heart of a buzzing, sparking madness in U.S. politics. It was 1968. There was a giant in the White House, Lyndon B. Johnson, who found himself there by fate and an electoral landslide. This giant was weakened by the wound of Vietnam — but no one knew how weak, and wounded giants can be dangerous indeed. No one, it seemed, had the guts to test him.
Antiwar strategist Allard K. Lowenstein reportedly begged Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York to challenge Johnson. No dice. Lowenstein pleaded next with Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota to do it. Nope.  
Image result for bernie sanders got cold
The seasons bring change and one has to notice those changes around us


Shaggy-headed college students clipped their hair, declared themselves “Clean for Gene,” and trooped to New Hampshire to knock on doors. Sometimes, the volunteers interrupted the evening news, which was grim with reports of North Vietnam’s Tet Offensive. When McCarthy won more than 40 percent of the votes in that first primary and held the giant below 50 percent, suddenly everyone could see that Johnson’s wound was mortal. The president dropped out of the race within weeks. The Democratic Party split wide-open just as the country was going half crazy, and the weird, flawed figure of Richard M. Nixon slipped into the presidency. 
All these McCarthy memories came rushing up when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced Tuesday that he’s running for president again. It seems Sanders is making the same mistake McCarthy made as he returned time and again to the presidential well — 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992. Both men were improbable candidates whose willingness to challenge a giant paid off in a transient flash of glory. But Sanders appears no more aware than McCarthy that the moment doesn’t last.
History will not be hoodwinked by the thin excuses Hillary Clinton’s supporters make for her disastrous loss in 2016. Only a terrible candidate could have managed to lose to Donald Trump. For all the headings on her résumé, Clinton had already demonstrated this weakness by losing to an inexperienced Barack Obama in 2008. And yet, as she limped into 2016, only Sanders, among Washington figures, would test her.
Like McCarthy, the Vermont independent tapped something: the anti-giant impulse. Those clean-shaven boys for Gene had their spiritual heirs in the oft-bearded Bernie Bros. McCarthy’s anthem came courtesy of Peter, Paul & Mary. Sanders played Simon and Garfunkel for his soundtrack. 
But neither candidate grew into the larger force that can take an impulse and turn it into victory. It is a hard, bitter lesson for most senators and governors and celebrity candidates to learn that history is full of accidents and coincidence and happenstance and contains very few masters of fate.
Sanders filled the anti-Hillary vacuum in 2016. And like the vacuum McCarthy filled in early 1968, this was a fleeting opportunity, seized and then gone. For a moment, it took Sanders to the heart of a buzzing, sparking madness. And much as McCarthy’s moment ended with Nixon, the Sanders moment faded with the weird, flawed figure of Trump in the White House.
However the 2020 campaign might unfold for the Democrats, there is no wounded giant to define the party fray. Minus the vacuum, Sanders will find, like gruff Gene, that his moment is gone, his agenda absorbed by more plausible candidates, his future behind him. Only the residue of unslaked ambition remains.

Featured Posts

Gay Discrimination Denies over 400K Kids a Loving Family

By Marissa Miller   Nineteen years ago, when Greg Thomas and Ron Preston adopted Samantha, they didn’t expect...