Much to my dismay, the 2020 election process is under way. I spent 2018 refusing to discuss 2020 because it’s pointless to discuss “candidates” who haven’t even announced that they’re running for president yet. Our election cycles are already entirely too long. I find the notion of making them longer absurd and painful.
But the election process has begun, so it’s time to start discussing. In so discussing, I would like to lay down some ground rules.
Rule #1 do not make a “viability” argument to me. This is a bullshit argument that is comprised of nothing but projection in favor of who you want to vote for. This is not a debatable topic. There is no empirical evidence that you can point to. So please don’t waste my time with it. Wanna know who is viable? Anyone who wins a (mostly) clean primary in which there are ten or more options. That’s who.
It was clear to me that something was amiss in the 2016 democratic primary when, in a year with no incumbent president from that party, only four people ran. And one of those four was Lincoln Chafee. Something was terribly wrong, right from the beginning. We didn’t find out why this happened until after the presidential election was concluded. That cannot happen again. The primary process is extremely important in vetting and testing candidates. So for everyone who is angry with Bernie for “costing” Hillary the election, please either grow up or shut up. He wasn’t even running in earnest until after the Iowa caucus. He was just in it to get a message out. He still managed to take 43% of all democratic primary votes, even though he didn’t start to build an infrastructure until February, 2016. Also, I don’t know why you all keep ignoring the fact that the democratic party allowed Bernie to run as a democrat. That’s right – he got permission from the party. Ralph Nader made the same request once. He was denied. If you don’t like primaries, you should feel a special kinship with Scott Walker, and every other republican who hates democracy and have therefore stripped power from the democratic governors who won elections. Primaries are good, and they’re the best way we have to vet candidates for resilience and viability. If you prefer to skip the primary process and simply have a coronation for your nominee of choice, you’re doomed to lose the general election over and over again.
Hillary referred to Barack as a child for the better part of 2007:
And then, Sarah Palin referred to him as a terrorist for three months, as Fox “News” had been doing for fourteen months. Nothing was going to stop him, and he had been thoroughly tested to prove it.
So to summarize, primaries are great because they objectively answer the viability question. You should all want a vigorous primary.
Rule #2: don’t tell me that you don’t want someone to run. Why? Why do you hate democracy? You don’t have to vote for anyone you don’t want to vote for, but why would you want to take choices away from others? I want everyone who has presidential aspirations to run in the primaries. More choices are always better, and make for a stronger vetting process. If Ivanka decides she wants to run against her father by throwing her hat into the democratic primary, I say go for it. I sure as shit won’t vote for her, but if her entry into the process more thoroughly tests the eventual nominee, then I’m in because I believe in democracy. For the love of god, think about what you’re saying when you make that point. If you don’t want somebody to run, it’s because you’re not feeling all that confident in your choice. Choose differently, but don’t advocate for limiting everyone else’s choices.
I supported Bernie in the last primary. That doesn’t necessarily mean that if he announces he’s running again, that he will be my choice again. I am going to wait for the last candidate to announce before I decide which candidate best represents my self interests. He was the right candidate for me in the last primary. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to be the right candidate for me in this primary. I plan to carefully vet each candidate as they announce that they’re running so that I can have all of the information I need to make my decision when the last candidate announces. I am not wasting time vetting anyone who hasn’t announced yet. So right now, I’m vetting Richard Ojeda, Elizabeth Warren, and Julian Castro because they’re definitely running. Warren announced that she was launching an exploratory committee. For those who don’t understand how politics works, she announced this so that she can get two news days for her candidacy. She’s running. Castro announced that he’s going to announce on the 12th for the same reason.
These are my choices right now, so these are the candidates I’m vetting. It’s okay to rule people out before everyone has announced, but you have to do it objectively. Create a list of your three most important issues and vet the candidates against those issues. My number one issue is corporate money in politics. I will not support any candidate who is taking big dollar donations from corporations in the primary. That is a hard line for me. That said, if all of the candidates are taking large corporate contributions, I’m going to have to move that hard line and settle for looking at candidates who aren’t taking super PAC money. You have to adjust your criteria as the situation on the ground changes.
My second issue is Medicare For All. I don’t plan on supporting a primary candidate who isn’t vocal in their support for Medicare For All. My third main issue is the regulation of banks. I’m not going to be particularly enthusiastic about anyone who isn’t coming out hard for regulating all industries, but particularly the banks.
You need to make up your own list, and start your own vetting process. Please don’t talk to me about candidates who aren’t running yet. When you do that, it tells me that your mind is closed and that you’re not taking this election seriously. If you can’t tell me something seriously troubling about the candidate that you’ve chosen to support, then you’re telling me that you haven’t done any vetting at all.
When I chose Bernie in 2016, I did so knowing that his record on gun control was completely anathema to my views on gun control. And by the way, I never defended his record there because I’m not a child and he’s not my daddy. I made the calculation that his stand on corporate money in politics was going to solve our issues with gun control. Without the NRA buying out politicians, sensible gun control laws become totally viable. That was my conclusion. I did it like an adult, by acknowledging the problem and deciding if it was a big picture deal breaker for me.
When Bernie conceded the primary to, and endorsed Hillary, I advocated for her in the general because my options had changed. You cannot be so emotional about these candidates, that you’re willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. Hillary was clearly the better (by far) choice in the general election. Unfortunately, she wasn’t sufficiently vetted for viability in the primary. She wasn’t a strong candidate, which is why the propaganda against her worked. Propaganda only works if people are receptive to it. As I said earlier, nothing was going to stop Obama. So please stop relitigating 2016. It’s over. She lost because she didn’t run an effective campaign since she didn’t have to. She cock blocked any real competition in the primary, and therefore wasn’t sufficiently tested for viability. Biden didn’t even run – that should have told you that something stinky happened there. Get over it and move on. We have another election to focus on.
So let’s get on with it. Let’s look at all the candidates, and all of our priorities and make some intellectually honest and vigorous arguments advocating for the candidates we like.
I will be sharing information I find through my vetting process for each candidate so that you can decide how that information effects your decision. I will not be making my primary choice until (probably) during the summer, when everyone who is going to run is actually in the race.
