Why has Warren surged?

Image result for elizabeth warren hillary clinton
Reuters news photo

I posit that one of the reasons for Elizabeth Warren’s current surge in the nationwide polls of 2020 Democratic Party presidential preference is the leftover pain and anger from women voters who didn’t see the first female president elected in 2016.

There was a time not so long ago that I believed that Elizabeth Warren probably should just drop out of the 2020 presidential race already, as she was languishing in the polls and was unable to put the “Pocahontas” bullshit behind her.

However, that has changed, at least for the time being. She now is poised to overtake Bernie Sanders, who has been at second place (behind Joe Biden) for quite a long time now. Here is the graph that accompanies Wikipedia’s page on nationwide polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination:

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (higher candidates).svg

Warren is represented by the red line, which sharply is trending upwards. (Biden is the sharply dropping red line and Bernie is the slightly declining orange line.)

If the trend continues, Warren will overtake Bernie, as so many Bernie-haters hope will happen.

Why is Warren surging now? Matt Taibbi’s theory, as to at least the media coverage of Warren’s surge, seems about right to me. He recently wrote for Rolling Stone that

… Warren’s obvious [current] appeal to the conga line of think-tankers and D.C. political consultants currently swooning over her campaign is her perceived utility in helping remove Sanders from the race. It’s why Bernie’s in almost every headline about her rise.

The Sanders campaign has come to expect the doom-saying headlines, even taking them as validation. Echoing the famous FDR quote, “We welcome their hatred,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir suggested it’s all par for the course.

“This isn’t bean-bag politics,” he said. “It’s a war for what vision of the country you believe in.” …

Indeed, as Taibbi also notes, “Horse race coverage exists so commercial news can cover presidential races without talking about issues.”

Indeed, let’s set up a false horse race between Sanders and Warren instead of talking about the status-quo-disrupting structural reforms that they have advocated. You can’t expect the corporately owned and controlled mass “news” media to advocate for the loss of their own power, can you?

To be clear, as would Taibbi, I would be fine with Warren in the White House.

However, after her fellow Massachusettsans Michael Dukakis and John Kerry lost their presidential bids because they were depicted as clueless eggheads, I’m not at all sure if Warren could beat “President” Pussygrabber, but she has been my second choice, behind Bernie, for a long time now.

Warren is my second choice because she was a Repugnican as late as the 1990s and because she calls herself a capitalist while I see present-day capitalism as very probably beyond anything like meaningful reform. Capitalism is evil, and “reforming” it only means making it a little less evil (if that’s even possible).

Also, of course, I still hold it against Warren that she didn’t have the balls to challenge Repugnican Lite Billary Clinton for the nomination in 2016, and I still believe that Bernie deserves the 2020 nomination in no small part because he did have the balls to go up against the Clinton machine.

If Warren actually ends up getting the nomination, which seems to be a real possibility, since she now is in third place (and since at least for right now both Biden and Bernie are dipping in the polls), it probably will be because she successfully has straddled both worlds: that of the (probably dying) Democratic establishment (in which one dare not to have opposed Queen Billary in 2016) and that of those of us who actually are progressive (and thus, in my book, the only true Democrats; corporate whores, in my book, are not Democrats, not at all).

Part of the reason that Warren appears to be surging now also might be from the lingering disappointment that in 2016 we didn’t get our first female president.

I was fine that we didn’t, as DINO Billary would have been a very disappointing first female president, but I know that millions of American women were crushed to see the first female presidential candidate of either major party be defeated by the likes of Pussygrabber. (And the fact that he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes but still ascended to the Oval Office was only salt and lemon juice ground into the wound.)

I’d be fine if Elizabeth Warren were our first female president, but today I’m still backing Bernie.

My third choice probably would be Pete Buttigieg, but I don’t see him getting the nomination, even though he’s surging lately, too. (He is represented by the blue line in the graph above, which shows him at fourth place.)*

I find Joe Biden to be utterly unacceptable, and even if he won the 2020 nomination, I would not vote for him. You can’t whine that the Democratic Party has become too much like the corporate whores who comprise the treasonous Repugnican Party and at the same time support a corporate whore like Joe Biden.**

P.S. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention as a possible if not probable factor in Warren’s current surge the fact that she doggedly has been putting forth progressive policy proposals.

I acknowledge that hard work of hers.

It’s that I rather doubt, in our corporately owned and controlled mediated environment, which is all about personalities and the horse race, that Warren’s hard work much benefits her.

Indeed, in our anti-intellectual national environment, stoked by the likes of fascist and treasonous “President” Pussygrabber and his band of treasonous and fascist grifters, being an intellectual often counts against you, not for you.

*Buttigieg is in third place for me because although the then-young Barack Obama promised “hope” and “change” but delivered only more of the same, I suppose I’m still at least a little susceptible to the supposed political promise of a young upstart.

But perhaps because I felt perpetually punk’d by Obama after he actually took office, I’m still gun shy enough to keep Buttigieg in third place.

**Before you fucking say (or even think) a word, please remember (or educate yourself for the first time…) that the U.S. president is selected under the Electoral College, not by the popular vote, and that the Democratic presidential candidate, whoever it is, will win my very blue state of California and thus all of its electoral votes, no matter how I fucking vote.

Under the awful Electoral College I could fucking vote for Pussygrabber in November 2020 and that wouldn’t at all change the fact that every single one of my state’s electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate, regardless of who it is.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Biden drops as Bernie climbs

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (higher candidates).svg

Above is the graph that accompanies Wikipedia’s page on the nationwide polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

As the graph shows, Joe Biden, the top line in red, peaked after his official presidential campaign announcement in late April but now is dropping, and Bernie Sanders, the second-from-the-top line in orange, dropped as Biden peaked but now is recovering (not as quickly as Biden is dropping, but still…).

If the trend continues, as I expect it to, since Biden is an incredibly weak candidate, Bernie has a very good chance of winning this thing this time.

Things should get interesting after the first set of Democratic presidential debates later this month.

Again, I expect Biden (who, much like Billary Clinton, never has been willing to do the work that a presidential candidate must do) to implode — history probably is a guide on this — and the question then will be which candidate the most Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters support as the Democratic presidential field inevitably dwindles.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

My response to ‘straight pride’

Begins at 1:28. Yup…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Joe Biden, who is Billary 2.0, already falls back to earth in the polls

Joe Biden, pictured above dozing in public during one of Barack Obama’s speeches in 2011, apparently believes that, like the hare in the tale of the tortoise and the hare — and like Billary Clinton — he safely can nap and win the race anyway.

The Democratic Party hacks won’t talk about this, but Joe Biden’s poll numbers have dropped. He got a post-official-announcement bounce that put him in the 40s in some polls, but already he has come back down to earth.

Three nationwide polls to which fivethirtyeight.com gives a grade of “A” were taken from May 11 through May 20.

A Fox News poll* taken from May 11 through May 14 put Biden at 35 percent and Bernie Sanders at No. 2 at 17 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in at No. 3, with 9 percent, and Pete Buttigieg came in at No. 4, with 6 percent.

A Quinnipiac University poll taken from May 16 through May 20 put Biden at 35 percent and Bernie Sanders at 16 percent, with Warren coming in at No. 3 with 13 percent, five percentage points ahead of Kamala Harris at No. 4.

A Monmouth University poll also taken from May 16 through May 20 put Biden at 33 percent, Bernie at 15 percent, Harris at 11 percent and Warren at 10 percent.

This trio of recent grade-“A” polls (according to fivethirtyeight.com) gives Biden an average of 34 percent and Bernie an average of 16 percent.

The million-dollar question, it seems to me, is which of these top-two candidates, Bernie or Biden, is going to inherit more of the supporters of those many candidates who inevitably will drop out over the coming several months.

Joe Biden has been around for decades — he first ran for the Democratic Party’s 1998 nomination for president, spectacularly unsuccessfully, in the midst of a plagiarism scandal — and it seems to me that if he were so fucking beloved, he’d be doing better than capturing the support of only about a third of Democratic Party voters and Dem-leaning voters.

Has the well-known Biden maxed out his support? If so, even though Bernie right now is trailing him at a rather distant No. 2 in the polls, then Bernie does indeed have a chance — especially if he picks up the lion’s share of the supporters of those candidates who inevitably drop out.

A sign of Biden’s weakness, it seems to me, is the fact that he’s keeping a low profile. The Washington Post reports:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to enjoy ice cream with New Hampshire voters to celebrate Memorial Day. He won’t be far from former Maryland congressman John Delaney, another presidential candidate, who’s in the midst of his 19th trip to the state and plans an itinerary that includes four barbecues, one parade and a wreath-laying.

In Iowa, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is rolling through the cornfields in an RV, while Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) unveils a “Family Bill of Rights” and tours an ethanol plant.

And here’s former vice president Joe Biden’s agenda for the holiday weekend, according to his campaign: “Joe Biden has no public events scheduled.”

Those seven words are becoming familiar for the Biden team. Aside from a campaign swing right after announcing his candidacy, Biden has kept his head down while his rivals rush from state to state to state. Even when he has held public events, they have included only a handful of questions from voters or reporters.

The light public schedule reflects the unique position of his campaign, advisers say: With near universal name recognition and high favorability ratings among Democrats, the former vice president does not need to introduce himself to voters like nearly every other candidate. And as the leader in early polls, he can attract media attention without splashy events. …

Wow. Recall that in 2016, party hack Billary Clinton believed that she was so beloved that she didn’t need to show up in the Rust Belt states. Recall that the 2016 presidential election results showed that although Billary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, Pussygrabber won the Electoral College by having won only three Rust Belt states (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) by only a combined around 80,000 votes.

So why the fuck isn’t Biden campaigning as though campaigning matters?

I can think of only three possibilities:

One, as I just indicated, Biden believes, like the cocky Billary did in 2008 (when she lost the Dem Party presidential nomination to Barack Obama), and in 2016, when she lost the White House to Pussygrabber, that he’s a shoo-in, and therefore he doesn’t have to exert himself. He’s like the hare in the tale of the tortoise and the hare.

Two, perhaps most probably, Biden’s handlers realize that his propensity to put his foot in his mouth easily could sink his third try for the Dem Party presidential nomination. Therefore, the apparent limit on the number of questions that he’ll take when he can be bothered to appear in public, according to The Washington Post.

Third — and it could be some combination of these three — Biden is low-energy, as Pussygrabber might put it, and he prefers to keep a light schedule because, unlike Bernie Sanders, he is unable to keep up with a rigorous campaign schedule.

None of these possibilities bode well for Team Biden, and, as I’ve indicated before, it’s my belief that if Joe Biden manages to win the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, November 2020 will be a fucking repeat of November 2016, and Pussygrabber will get another four years.

The Democratic Party hacks never fucking learn. Instead, they blame their wholly predictable failures on others, such as those of us who are true Democrats (that is, true progressives and not centrist corporate whores), and this sick dynamic easily could keep the Repugnicans in power for some time to come.

*I usually refer to Fox News as Faux “News,” and while the media outlet indeed is evil, fivethirtyeight.com rates its polling outfit highly.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I will miss the perfectly imperfect epic series ‘Game of Thrones’


A still from HBO’s final episode of “Game of Thrones.”

This had to happen, and while the final season of “Game of Thrones” did unfurl too quickly, methinks that critics of the final season are more upset over the fact that the series is over than over anything else.

I believe that I have yet to post a word about the now-concluded long-running HBO series “Game of Thrones,” but I’ve been watching it for years now. I was a holdout for the first four seasons, but then, because of all of the buzz, I caught those seasons on DVD, and then started watching each subsequent season as it aired (via HBO streaming).

I’m not sure why so many fans say they hate season eight.

Yes, the eighth and final season does have a pacing problem. That is, the first several seasons unfold gradually and leisurely, perhaps even too slowly for some, but they solidly establish the characters and fairly carefully chronicle the events.

Things start to pick up the pace in season seven, and then season eight, it’s true, could give you whiplash. Season eight is a bit of (OK, maybe a lot of) Wham, bam, thank you, ma’am!

I would love more of it to have been fleshed out, such as Dany’s (Daenerys Targaryen’s) turn to the dark side. There were signs of that possibility pretty much all along, but in season eight, she careens toward the dark side to the point that almost overnight she essentially resembles a medieval she-Hitler.

And, of course, there are logical inconsistencies in season eight. The second felled dragon is shot down by Team Lannister with ease, not with one ginormous arrow, or two, but (if memory serves) with three, yet the third and last surviving dragon, Dany’s favorite, Drogon, apparently can’t be shot down when Dany makes her assault on King’s Landing, and this isn’t explained.

And when Drogon climactically melts the Iron Throne in a fit of sorrow and rage in the final episode, it’s as though Drogon knows that it was her quest for this throne that ultimately killed his “mother” Dany. Have we really anthropomorphized a giant reptile? (True, once we accept the existence of fire-breathing dragons, then we can’t be too picky with logic, but still…)

On another note, I don’t know that illegitimate Queen Cersei Lannister’s death (in episode seven of season eight) is satisfying enough — it seems undeservedly quick for her, given all of the pain and suffering that she has caused others — but the fate of the other characters by the end of season eight seem more or less logical and fair.

I’m fine with Dany’s death. The way that she was going, she had to be eliminated, and she was so deluded that it’s not too inconsistent with her character that she apparently didn’t think that Jon Snow might skewer her. (On that note, it’s interesting that even raging fire couldn’t harm Dany, but a rather simple dagger could…)

Yes, Jon got screwed out of his monarchical birthright (and exiled [although exile seems to suit him]), but because the whole concept of monarchical birthright is eliminated by the (surviving…) heads of the houses of Westeros by the end of the final episode of the show, that takes at least some of the sting out of Snow’s screwing. (And we can acknowledge that “the wheel” finally has been “broken,” albeit not at all in the way that Dany had envisioned it would be.)

It had occurred to me that Bran Stark (the too-repeated moniker “Bran the Broken” makes me cringe; have the disability-rights folks said anything about this?) might end up as the king, and I’m fine with that choice, perhaps especially because that choice was made, more or less, democratically. (That is, it was made by the heads of the houses, not by the common people, which Sam Tarly suggests should be the case but then is promptly ridiculed by his aristocratic peers, even our heroine Sansa Stark.)

I only wish that Bran had been more developed before he was named king. He was fairly developed for several seasons (as much as you can develop a mystic with magical powers, anyway), but then he just faded into the background, and in season eight he returns, but he’s pretty much all cipher, which can wear on the nerves.

The problems with seasons seven and eight — mostly, their fast, let’s-get-this-over-with-and-wrapped-up-already pace — apparently stem from the fact that the showrunners probably should have waited until “Game of Thrones” creator George R. R. Martin had finished all of his books before they began the television series at all.

I mean, Martin doesn’t appear to me to be the picture of great health; all along there has been no guarantee that he’d even live to finish writing and releasing the full series of books, so, it seems to me, starting the television series before the book series was finished was quite risky.

But for all of its flaws, big and nitpicky, what a ride “Game of Thrones” has been! I don’t think that there has been anything on television before it, and I don’t think that we’re likely to see its equal anytime soon. (And spin-offs usually don’t equal their original material, do they?)

“Thrones” not only was a television show, but it became intertwined with American culture. (In my personal vernacular I even use “Game of Thrones” as a verb, meaning to work behind the scenes to try to influence an outcome, usually when you can’t operate in the open, for political reasons.)

An example of how “Thrones” intertwined with American culture is how the objectification and sexual mistreatment of women in the first few seasons was roundly criticized, and in later seasons was curtailed. (Coincidence? I think not; over the years there definitely was a synergy between the show’s creators and the show’s audience.)

For another example, you know that had Jon Snow been made king after Dany had been offed (by Jon!), feminists would have screamed to high heaven. I mean, that would have been too soon after Billary Clinton didn’t become president, no? Why can’t a woman ever run the show? (And if she does run the show, why does she have to be evil, like Cersei, who got to where she did by lying and cheating [including murdering her rivals]?)

On that note (feminism), it seemed to me that both Brienne of Tarth and Arya Stark were displaying some lesbian* (or at least asexual) tendencies, so it disappointed me a bit that both of them ended up with heterosexual love interests, if even only briefly. Must everyone be heterosexual? (There are at least two other bona fide lesbians in the series, though, Yara Greyjoy and Ellaria Sand [OK, the later is bisexual, but still…].**)

It also seems to me that feminists might have been up in arms also had Sansa not been made queen of the North, newly made an independent kingdom, as it had been in the past. I was OK with that choice, but, sociopolitically (in real life), after Dany’s death, didn’t Sansa kind of have to get something? Feminists would have been outraged had she not.

And it was fitting, of course, for Arya to go off exploring at the end. Perhaps there will be a spin-off about her adventures. (In the final episode of the show, if memory serves, Tyrion Lannister pontificates that Bran’s journey is the most interesting of everyone’s, but Arya’s, I think, probably is the most interesting of them all.)

Finally, my favorite character of “Thrones,” I think, was Tyrion. Not only did actor Peter Dinklage do a great job with the character, a basically good guy from a really rotten family, but the character was well developed, even though the character was neglected in much of season eight (until toward the end of the season). And Tyrion has no magical powers or magical beasts at his disposal; indeed, he has had to overcome having been born an “imp” (again, activists, why haven’t I heard you on this?).

After Tyrion, I think, my favorites were sorceress Melisandre and “Master of Whisperers” Varys, who, like Tyrion, are string-pullers. All three of them make mistakes, but overall I find their behind-the-scenes intrigue to be more interesting than the in-your-face heroism and big acts of the likes of Jon Snow and Dany. (Again, though, Arya is interesting, too; she has some in-your-face heroism [she kills the Night King, after all!] and plenty of behind-the-scenes intrigue. [Ask Walder Frey.])

If Bran had been fleshed out a lot more, as I had hoped that he would be, I’d have liked him more, but his statement in the final episode indicating that he had known all along that he would be made king made him seem kind of like a dick. (It does, however, perhaps explain why the Night King specifically was after Bran.)

Alas, “Game of Thrones,” with all of its hits and misses, is over. Yes, as I hinted, there are to be spin-offs. No, season eight does not need to be re-done. I mean, yes, it could have been done better, but it won’t be re-done, so one’s energy is better spent elsewhere (perhaps as by trying to lose one’s virginity and/or moving out of Mom’s basement [Kidding! (Not really…)]).

“Thrones,” like its characters, is imperfect, but like so many of its characters, is unforgettable. It has been a grand achievement of art and culture, the likes of which we aren’t likely to see again for a long time.

While I was glad to have the fates of the ever-dwindling cast of characters*** finally determined, at the same time I’m sad to see the series end — as are, no doubt, even its most vocal critics.

*The Advocate had pegged Brienne and Arya as lesbians, too, so shut up.

**As a gay man I wasn’t thrilled that “Thrones'” two biggest gay male characters, Renly Baratheon and Loras Tyrell, are killed off, but in the end, it’s a television series… And sometimes when a member of a historically oppressed group is portrayed as being victimized, it draws attention to the fact that that group needs to stop being victimized in the real world.

***Shout-out to actor Jack Gleeson, whose Caligula-like villain Joffrey Baratheon (actually 100 percent a Lannister, of course) probably was the show’s most delightfully despicable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Keep up your irrational exuberance, Bidenbots!

PHOTO: Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden speaks to guests during a campaign event at The River Center, May 1, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa.
Getty Images photo

Nothing says “I give up even trying to figure all of this out!” quite like supporting Joe Biden for president for 2020.

Shitty polls can make for great headlines.

For example, The Hill recently ran this headline: “Biden Takes 32-point Lead Over Sanders in New 2020 Poll.” Dramatic!

The “news” story begins:

Former Vice President Joe Biden has a 32-point lead in the Democratic presidential race in a Hill-HarrisX poll released Monday. [The poll was conducted May 3 and May 4.]

Biden won 46 percent in the poll compared to 14 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who came in a distant second place.

South Bend, Ind. mayor Pete Buttigieg was in third place with 8 percent, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) with 7 percent. …

What doesn’t this “news” story tell you? It doesn’t tell you that this poll is an outlier — that no other recent reputable nationwide poll of Democrats and Dem leaners gives Biden more than 40 percent. It doesn’t tell you that fivethirtyeight.com rates the polling outfit (HarrisX) with an unimpressive C+.

And I’ll keep saying it: Give me a huge sample size and a small margin of error!

This HarrisX poll that is a clear outlier from the other polls has a sample size of only 440 people and thus has what to me is a useless margin of error — plus or minus 5 percent. (I can work with around 3 percent, but 5 percent is too much.)

Luckily, there is one polling outfit that gives a shit about a huge sample size and a small margin of error: Morning Consult, which fivethirtyeight.com gives a B- (I’m not sure why it’s not higher than that).

Morning Consult’s latest poll, taken April 29 through May 5, with a sample size approaching 16,000 and thus a margin of error of only plus or minus 1 percent, gives Biden 40 percent and Bernie 19 percent, a difference of 21 percentage points, not 32. (In that poll, Elizabeth Warren comes in at a distant third place, with 8 percent, and Kamala Harris is just behind Warren, with 7 percent.)

Biden had hit 35 percent in previous Morning Consult polls taken this year, so 40 percent isn’t what I’d call phenomenal. It’s a boost of only 5 percentage points from where he had been polling recently. It is, as far as I can discern, a normal boost in the polls to receive after you’ve officially announced your candidacy (especially if you were vice president in the past).

Morning Consult at several points had Bernie polling in the low 20s (or even lower) this year, so 19 percent doesn’t mean that all of his support has evaporated overnight. It hasn’t; he’s still in solid second place in the polling, and his (non-Biden) competitors would love be able to hit even 9 percent.

The question is: How long will the Biden bounce last?

Not long, I believe.

Biden offers nothing new. The two biggest policy wonks thus far, in my book, are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who churn out policy ideas like amazon.com churns out packages, but what, exactly, is Biden’s pitch? It’s something along the lines of, “I was Barack Obama’s vice president — and I promise not to manhandle women anymore!”

Ooooo — exciting! Not!

There are reasons why Biden failed to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination when he went for it in 1988 and 20 years later in 2008; the voters actually aren’t all that into him.

Now that he’s older but not wiser, and offers not a vision for the future but only wishes us to believe that we must seek to go back to the past (this is much the fuzzy, magical thinking that was “hope” and “change”), I see Biden imploding again — especially once we get to the debates (which begin late next month) — as he has imploded in the past.

The fact of the matter is that the establishment, including our corporately owned and controlled “news” media, much prefer that Joe Biden rather than Bernie Sanders be our next president because they know fully well that Biden (like Obama before him) would be the keep-the-status-quo president.

Who knows what success a President Sanders might actually have in making things less cushy for the corporations and better for the people?

Therefore, I fully expect the corporately owned and controlled news media to continue to push the narrative that Biden already has won and Bernie already has lost even before the first voter has been able to cast a vote. (That would be in the Iowa caucuses on February 3, 2020.)

But if the Bidenbots believe that Biden already has this thing in the bag, then that’s probably good for Bernie.

Billary and the Billarybots smugly thought that they had in the bag in 2008 — and that worked out pretty well for Barack Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

There is not, and there should not be, affirmative action for elections

Kamala Harris
Getty Images photo

Your race and your biological sex aren’t qualifications for elected office, whether you were born a white male or a non-white female (or non-white male).

The identity politicians are apoplectic that white men are the front-runners for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Indeed, most nationwide polls of Democratic presidential preference taken over the past two weeks or so show Joe Biden at No. 1, Bernie Sanders at No. 2 and Pete Buttigieg at No. 3.

Kamala Harris, a two-fer for the identity politicians, had been in third place for a long time before she was bumped (perhaps only temporarily — who knows?) by Buttigieg.

Politico reported a few days ago:

Houston — The women of color who packed into a university auditorium here Wednesday for a first-of-its-kind presidential forum delighted in the rhetoric of candidates who vowed to make Donald Trump a one-term president.

But their frustration was just as palpable — over the heavy media attention being paid to white male candidates in the early days of the Democratic primary, and over polling they contended is feeding a misleading narrative that only a white man can defeat Trump.

“With all due respect to the vice president, he hasn’t even announced yet but he’s the front-runner?” Leah Daughtry, a political operative and former Democratic National Committee official who helped organize the “She the People” event, said of Joe Biden [who would go on to officially announce the next day].

“Racism and sexism are part of the fabric and the fiber and the founding of our country,” she added, “and the way that the [Democratic] candidates are being treated, it just reminds you of that. We’re not past it.” …

Thing is, it seems that the identity politicians’ belief is that we, the people (on the Democratic side, anyway), must support, preferably, a non-white female candidate for president (if it must be a male, he must be non-white).

But electoral politics don’t work that way. The people support and vote for whomever they support and vote for (even when they support and vote for appallingly awful candidates such as George W. Bush and Pussygrabber).

There isn’t, and there cannot be, affirmative action in democratic politics, because democratic politics is all about choice — not about having candidates of certain demographics rammed down the throats of the populace.

I understand the frustration and disappointment over the fact that female and non-white candidates are campaigning but aren’t gaining traction. Kamala Harris as of late can’t make it to even 10 percent in most nationwide polls, and Elizabeth Warren can’t do as well as even Harris, and Cory Booker is behind both Harris and Warren.

Beto O’Rourke is polling right around where Warren is — proof, methinks, that merely being a white man isn’t enough.

Harris, Warren, Booker and O’Rourke all, in my book, lack substance and/or charisma. Harris doesn’t have much of either, Warren has a lot of substance but not a lot of charisma, Booker has neither and ditto for O’Rourke, whose laughably contrived “charisma” isn’t charisma at all, because you can’t fake charisma; you have it or you don’t.

Obviously, because every U.S. president except for Barack Obama has been a white male (and Obama is half-white), within the collective American psyche, apparently, is the belief, if even subconscious, that the president should be a white man. Many, many women even hold this belief, even consciously (most of them are Repugnicans, but still…).

Obama overcame this challenge because of his charisma — and also because, as he acknowledged himself, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” (Indeed, upon that blank screen I projected — because of his campaign’s relentless, ubiquitous promises of “hope” and “change” — that Obama would be a progressive president. Boy, was I punk’d!)

Obama, an astute political opportunist, struck while the iron was hot; his window of political opportunity was rare and unique and it was brief. For Harris or Booker to believe that she or he easily could replicate Obama’s success simply because of his or her race not only is cynical and shallow and superficial, but quite obviously dead wrong.

I support Bernie Sanders not because he’s an old white guy — I loathe “President” Pussygrabber, but not because he’s an old white guy, but because he’s a fascist, treasonous criminal who wasn’t even actually elected — but I support Bernie because of those candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in the top three tiers (which I define as consistently polling at 3 percent or more in nationwide polls), he has the most experience in D.C. and is the most progressive, entirely unlike Creepy Uncle Joe, who is an obsolete Clintonian sellout.

I easily could argue that Bernie is the only true Democrat in the race, which is ironic, given how often he is criticized for not actually being a Democrat.

My second choice probably would be Warren, even though her campaigning has been tone deaf and even though it does bother me at least a bit that as recently as the 1990s she was a Repugnican.

The reason I’m not giving Warren money or otherwise actively supporting her is because the polls of those within her own party clearly show that she isn’t exciting them, and I don’t and won’t squander my money, time, energy and emotional investment on a candidate who can’t excite even his or her own base.

My third choice probably would be Buttigieg, but I’m still gun shy from Obama. Even though Obama was an unknown, I put my support behind him, hoping for that change, and I was bitterly disappointed to see that we didn’t get change, but for the most part got only more of the same. Obama was a caretaker president at best.

So I can’t dive in and blindly support Buttigieg, as I did Obama.

Plus, Buttigieg isn’t ready to be president. He’s precocious and ambitious, to be sure, but I don’t think that it’s time to turn over the Oval Office to him. I’d love him to run for governor or for the U.S. Senate — and win (and then do a good job in the office) — first.

And, unlike how the craven identity politicians would support (probably exclusively) only someone who shares their own demographics, I’m not going to support Buttigieg primarily or even solely because he’s a gay white man like I am. It’s not enough that he and I both happen to white, male, and not heterosexual. This isn’t junior fucking high school.

Again, if it’s indeed the case that most American voters believe that the president should or even must be a white man, that’s sad, but, in a democracy, in which the voters are free to elect whomever they wish to elect, whether you or I agree with their choices or not, what, exactly, can be done about that?

That was a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway: qualified candidates who aren’t male and who aren’t white should continue to run for office, from local office to the presidency. Over time, their candidacies, successful or not, will change the national psyche. I know of no other democratic way.

Finally, it also should be pointed out that Biden and Bernie have run for president before, which is a huge reason that they are at No 1 and No. 2. On the national political stage they are fairly known quantities, unlike the likes of Harris and O’Rourke and Buttigieg. (Sadly, the problem with candidates such as Booker and Warren apparently is that they are known quantities…)

Ironically, at least for now, anyway, it seems to be Buttigieg who is filling the “hope” and “change” spot — that is, he is the bright and shiny newcomer on whom many voters seem willing to take the chance. (It had looked like that spot would be filled be O’Rourke, but he has turned out to be the flash in the pan that it was pretty clear he was going to be.)

And I’m sure that many black Americans, who tend to be homophobic, are pretty incensed that a gay white man apparently has displaced Kamala Harris, who “deserves” the presidential nomination because she’s a black woman, you see; the way that she was born are her “qualifications,” which is ironic, given that we’ve established that merely having been born a white male aren’t qualifications.

What I’m hoping is that young progressive politicians now, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Katie Porter and Rashida Tlaib (and Buttigieg!), get more and more electoral and governance experience under their belts and give us the diverse bench of qualified presidential candidates that we don’t really have now.

That, to me, seems to be the best solution — not to piss and moan ad infinitum that the American people apparently still prefer presidential candidates who are white men.

Whining incessantly about “sexism” and “misogyny” — while ignoring her glaring flaws and shortcomings as a president candidate — didn’t help Billary Clinton the last go-around.

Further such whining isn’t ever going to work in the future.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized