The Politics of Fear

Fellow anti-Trumpers, get a grip. Our worst enemy isn’t Donald Trump. It’s our cowardly, indecisive, and ill-informed selves.

Yes, we all want to beat Trump.

Yes, Trump can be reelected.

Yes, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Four more years of Trump and the United States will be a full-fledged banana republic.

Yes, Trump will conduct the most brutal, nasty, and sleazy campaign in American history, and he will have his own $1-billion disinformation campaign and the help of the Russians.

Yes, none of us want to mess this up by choosing the wrong candidate.

These extreme challenges should equate to a laser focused, highly energized resistance. And there are such people, and they are already hard at work on the 2020 election.

But there is an enormous amount of fear, indecision, and ignorance amongst us anti-Trump voters. The election campaign is just beginning, and people are claiming that they are exhausted. They can’t make up their minds about which Democrat to vote for. They are afraid that no one can beat Trump. Many believe the absurd talking points the Trumpists have concocted about the Democratic candidates.

Democrats are still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from the 2016 primaries and general election. They continue to stare at national polls, which mean absolutely nothing in terms of the Presidential election. They are willfully ignoring what has happened since 2016 and the obvious path to victory in 2020.

Beating Trump will be hard. But if you believe it is impossible, you are ignoring these important facts:

For the past year polls have shown every conceivable Democratic candidate beating Trump in the general election. Every one of them.

129,085,410 votes were cast in 2016. Trump won because of 30,000 votes cast in five states.

There are 12 million more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country.

Trump is the most unpopular President since Herbert Hoover.

Nearly all Americans made up their minds about Trump three years ago. His poll numbers have been flatlined in negative territory forever.

The Democrats won an historically spectacular victory in the 2018 midterm elections. We won the House of Representatives. We won governorships in Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and deep-red Kansas. We won control of both state houses and the governorships in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico and New York. We flipped both state houses in New Hampshire. We flipped the state senates in Colorado, Maine, Connecticut, and New York, and the state House in Minnesota. We busted up the supermajorities in the Michigan senate and in both chambers of the North Carolina legislature. We won supermajorities in the house chambers in Delaware and Illinois, the Nevada Assembly and both chambers of the Oregon state
legislature. We made strong gains in the red or purple states of Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Republican incumbents in Congress and state legislatures have been retiring in record numbers since 2016, removing the advantage of incumbency. In elections with no incumbent held since 2016, Republican candidates on average are running 5 points behind the unpopular Trump. The replacement candidates for these retirees tend to me far more extreme, which, in swing states, makes them more beatable.

The Midwest—which we all know after 2016 will be critical to the Presidential election—has been the best region for the Democrats since 2016. In elections held since then, Democrats have performed 10.2 points better in the Midwest than Clinton did in 2016.

Trump has been underwater in polls taken in the past year in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Arizona.

The 2020 U.S. Senate map favors the Democrats. Twenty-three of the 35 Senate seats that are up for grabs in 2020—including special elections in Arizona and Georgia—are held by the White Supramacist party.

The vast majority of Americans do not support the White Supremacist Party’s positions on healthcare, climate change, abortion rights, gun control, voting rights, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Trump’s just-released 2020 budget is a jaw-dropping gift to the Democrats: a half-a-trillion-dollar cut to Medicare, roughly $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and a $24 billion cut to Social Security.

The national polls, of course, are meaningless when it comes to the 2020 Presidential election, which will be decided by six to nine swing states, give or take a few. It’s clear that Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Colorado will be critical when it comes to beating Trump. How are things looking in those states?

The only polling site I could find that posts state-by-state favorable/unfavorable Trump polling results was Morning Consult. They are not the most highly rated polling outfit, but they are legit. They are Politico’s polling partner. 538.com gives them a B- more their 75% accuracy track record and a 2% bias in favor of Democrats.

The Morning Consult site shows Trump’s approval ratings trend since 2016 by state. So how do their polls show Trump doing in our nine swing states? Trump’s support since the election has plunged in all of them:

Down 11 points in Arizona (53% unfavorable)

Down 14 points in Colorado (53% unfavorable)

Down 24 points in Florida (currently 49% favorable)

Down 20 points in Michigan (54% disapprove)

Down 10 points in Minnesota (54% disapprove)

Down 14 points in New Hampshire (55% disapprove)

Down 19 points in North Carolina (49% disapprove)

Down 11 points in Pennsylvania (49% disapprove)

Down 15 points in Wisconsin (53% disapprove)

In fact, according to the Morning Consult polls, Trump’s support has dropped by double digits since 2016 in every single state with the exception of Idaho, where he has gained six points.

Polls aren’t scientific, the 2020 race will be hard and likely close, and there is always the possibility that the Democratic Party and its candidate will screw up. My point is that the anti-Trump resistance has a LOT going for it. We must reject the false notion that there is a sizeable group of undecided voters out there that are still in play and focus like monomaniacs on getting out the Democratic vote in those states.

Getting out the Democratic vote in nine states is not rocket science. It’s not a herculean task. Stop being scared and fearful and undecided and paralyzed. Stop whimpering and get to work on taking advantage of your built-in political advantages and your party’s recent momentum by volunteering and donating.

Most importantly, live up to the commitment the vast majority of us have made since 2016—to support
the 2020 Democratic nominee.

This brings us to Bernie Sanders.

(Full disclosure: I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and Hillary Clinton in the general in 2016. The only candidate I have contributed to this year is Elizabeth Warren. I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.)

Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa and will likely win tonight in New Hampshire. It’s to Sanders’ advantage to have as many opponents as possible, and it looks like none of the current currents will drop out after New Hampshire. Sanders is in an excellent position to do well on Super Tuesday, when Democrats in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont go to the polls.

Joe Biden will end up finishing fourth or fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is like the pilot of a plane that is out of fuel and is trying to survive an emergency landing, which in Biden’s case will be an airstrip in South Carolina. Fresh polls there show that Michael Bloomberg, who has been saturating South Carolina with television ads, is taking a big chunk of African American voters away from Biden, which is the worst possible news for the former Vice President.

If Sanders does well tonight and on Super Tuesday, and the non-socialist opposition—Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar—continueto split the anti-Bernie vote, Sanders’ only real opponent for the nomination will be Michael Bloomberg. Try to imagine a more disastrous scenario for the anti-Trump resistance than the Democratic Party spurning the candidate that won the most delegates in favor of a billionaire who bought his standing in polls. You can’t. That would not only mean the reelection of Trump but the end of the Democratic
party.

A lot can happen, but tomorrow morning it will probably look like Sanders will complete the takeover of the
Democratic Party that he nearly captured in 2016 and will be the one who runs against Trump.

There are a lot of Democrats still in the race, but none of them are as misunderstood and undervalued by Democratic voters than Bernie Sanders. James Carville spoke for many Democrats when he said “Are we out of our fucking minds?” about the prospect of Sanders winning the nomination.

What’s behind this reaction are the perceptions that (1) Sanders is too extreme, (2) Sanders is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist can’t win, (3) Sanders can’t win swing voters, and (3) Sanders would not be the Democratic Party “unity” candidate we need to get out the Democratic vote in November.

Sanders’ platform is only extreme when viewed in relationship to the policies of the White Supremacist Party, which has morphed from the Republican Party of old to a full-blown fascismovement dedicated to white power and the ultra-rich. Agree with Sanders’ platform or not, it doesn’t shy way from addressing real issues that Americans really care about, including healthcare, climate change, getting money out of politics, and the enormous gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of us that has destroyed the American middle class. Sanders’ positions have become more mainstream since 2016, and his influence is seen in the platforms of all the other candidates. Sanders’ command of the issue of income inequality make him the best candidate to puncture Trump’s biggest political advantage—the myth that our economy is doing well.

This perception focuses on “electability,” which is a new term that is not only meaningless but that casts a dangerous fog over political reality. Presidential elections are primarily thumbs-up or thumbs-down votes on the performance of the party currently in the White House. The only times the opposing nominee has been a determining factor have been when he or she is truly charismatic and inspirational, like Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were. The history of Presidential elections is littered with the corpses of “electable” Democrats. Surely we haven’t already forgotten Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

It’s an indisputable fact is that Sanders has consistently led Trump in head-to-head polling in battleground states. Too many Democrats fail to appreciate that Sanders is way out in front of the party when it comes to understanding the national rage that has resulted from income inequality. His success has come from a lifetime spent focused on this issue. He’s shown real leadership, and it’s made him the leader of a movement. Many Democrats seem to view this as a bad thing, something cultish that is somehow threatening, when in fact the timing seems right, when the passion of his supporters is unmatched by any other candidate, and when he resonates so intensely with young Americans.

And don’t forget that Sanders is beating Trump in the polls after describing himself as a democratic socialist. So many Democrats are terrified because Trump will brand Sanders as a communist, which he will certainly do. But you are seriously deluded if you think that Trump wouldn’t throw an equal amount of raw sewage at Amy Klobuchar. This notion that the Democrats will win if they nominate someone with the least amount of pre-existing baggage is incredibly naïve. Democrats need an aggressive campaigner this year against the Master of Sleaze and a candidate who is not shy about declaring Trump to be what he is: a racist, a fascist, and a misogynist.

When Democrats dismiss Sanders as a cult leader, they are ignoring the obvious fact that Sanders is a phenomenally skilled politician. In five years he has nearly completed a takeover of a political party that he has never been a member of. Many Democrats hate this about Sanders, but these folks rarely asks themselves why their party has been so ripe for the picking by an outsider. Sanders is the best fundraiser among the Democrats and he’s done that on an average donation of $18. That’s an incredible political feat. And Sanders is proving to have the best organization and ground game, too. Sanders’ fundraising skills and organization would be incredibly valuable in the general election.

Sanders is a stark contrast to Trump. Integrity versus dishonesty, courage versus cowardice,  empathy versus privilege, eloquence versus profanity, tenacity versus changeableness , democrat versus authoritarian—name the quality, and Sanders and Trump couldn’t be more opposite.

If he wins most of the delegates in the primaries, Sanders will be the best Democratic Party unity candidate, if only because if he is denied the nomination the party will be split apart.

Democrats like to bask in the reflective glory of the Obama era, and there is a lot of be proud of there. But in this existential Presidential election facing us and the extreme peril we are facing, we anti-Trumpers should be looking at a similarly critical election in an equally perilous time.

In 1932 Democrats faced an unpopular President and a polarized electorate. They rejected the politics of the past and the once-failed candidacy of Al Smith and instead nominated Franklin Roosevelt, a candidate with a seemingly radical agenda aimed at solving the real challenges facing the country.

Roosevelt never shied away from taking it to the Republicans. Here’s what he told his followers in Madison Square Garden in 1936:

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. Weknow now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Governmentby organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.”

Which current Democratic candidate comes closest to Roosevelt’sprogressive—and aggressive—brand of politics?

The face of a new Democratic Party?

The narrative being promoted by much of the media and some moderate Democrats that Andrew Gillum, the new Democratic nominee for governor in Florida, is an extreme-left candidate is predictably bogus. My Facebook feed is replete today with posts from traditional Democrats contending that Gillum's victory was a huge mistake and that he will take the party down to defeat.

Bernie Sanders brought a compelling progressive platform and a small army of devoted followers to the Democratic Party in 2016. Not surprisingly, his insurgency angered many Democrats, because he didn't register as a Democrat until he ran for President. In turn, Clinton's victory incensed many Sanders supporters who bought into a false narrative that Clinton had stolen the nomination. Sanders' progressivism did not attract enough minority voters. Clinton did not inspire enough younger voters or independents. The biggest danger the Democrats face in this fall's midterms is a continuation of the Sanders/Clinton divide. The ideal Democratic dynamic for November's critical election is one in which the two sides move past 2016 and create a majority coalition, and candidates that represent that coalition, to take down Trump.

Gillum is not a far-left extremist. He is, in fact, the personification of a new, bigger-tent, post-2016 Democratic Party.

Yes, Bernie Sanders endorsed Gillum, as did pro-Sanders groups Democracy in Action and the Working Families Party. But Gillum was a strong Clinton supporter in 2016; he spoke on her behalf at the Democratic convention. Gillum's Florida candidacy was endorsed by Julian Castro, BlackPAC, Color of Change, Tom Steyer's Next Generation America, and Moms Demand Action--who all supported Clinton in 2016.

Gillum could lose in November. The Florida gubernatorial election will be the most pathologically savage campaign that we have ever seen. But the old practice of nominating candidates indistinguishable from Republicans or former Republicans like Crist led to losses in 2010 and 2014. Gillum and Stacey Adams in Georgia are committed to a strategy of not apologizing for being a Democrat and of running on a progressive campaign that could unite the opposition in Florida. The outcome will say a lot not only about the future of the Democratic Party but about the future of the country.