Search the Lounge


« Why Joe Biden Should Quit the Race | Main | Detroit-Mercy Law Seeks IP Clinic Director »

July 02, 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


In response to the last post by Lubet, I observed:

"This is the new Left: long in rage and contempt for Trump (substitute Romney, Bush, Reagan, Nixon and any other republican, it doesn't matter) and short in principles. ... Here are the "issues" Lubet avoids: trying to bribe the voters with free (i.e., taxpayer funded) education, forgiveness of all student debt, free health care, guaranteed federal employment, a guaranteed monthly income, and, to put a cherry on the cake, all these benefits for any person who manages come into this country, whether with or without permission, and without regard to payment by that person of taxes of any kind."

Lubet doubles down, drawing a specious distinction between ability to win (merit of "candidacy") and ability to govern (merits of candidate). This stance reflects the ongoing deep disrespect the new LEft holds for the people.

To be sure, when we say "the people", for a new Leftist, we are not speaking of the "deplorables." These persons are "irredeemables" and therefore not even part of the discussion (about 48% of the country).

No, when a new Leftist refers to "the people" or "the voters" he or she means those who can be expected to vote for a Democrat. And, as we read and listen to the new Leftists, it becomes clear that they have no respect at all for these voters.

For a new Leftist, these voters are easily manipulated by brainwashing techniques, no matter how many billions are spent by the DNC and the Democratic candidates (Citizen United, "Russia"); these voters are racists (they vote on the basis of ethnic identity); these voters are ageists (they unashamedly postulate ageist tropes and engage in age discrimination), and these voters are easily swayed by unrealistic promises of free stuff at the expense of the despised "others." (It literally appears that the Democratic pitch is that rich white people will pay for all the give aways -- see, e.g., the claim for "reparations" ....)

The new Left, perhaps the Left always, has had a low opinion of "the People." Perhaps "the people" aren't as stupid and gullible and venal as the new Left presupposes them to be. Perhaps, just perhaps, they actually do pay some attention to the issues, or at least, to whether the candidate has a theme (e.g., Obama had a theme, for sure: did he carry it out)?


There is a flaw in Lubet's analysis, even if we accept the specious "candidacy" v. "candidate" distinction.

Lubet states " I [am] referring only to Biden’s main asset as a candidate, as opposed to his qualifications for office [his name recognition]."

Are we to suppose that Sanders suffers from a lack of name recognition?

From Wiki: "Sanders narrowly lost the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses by 0.25% of the vote.[94] He won the New Hampshire Democratic primary on February 9, 2016 by 22.4% of the vote (60.4% to Hillary Clinton's 38.0%), receiving strong support from voters who considered it important to nominate a candidate who is "honest and trustworthy".[95][96] This made him the first self-described democratic socialist and first non-Christian to win a major party's U.S. presidential primary.[97][98][99] In his home state of Vermont, Sanders received 86.1% of the vote, denying Clinton any delegates. He also won "landslide" victories in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. On March 8, Sanders pulled off an upset in the Michigan Democratic primary, where polls had favored Clinton by significant margins.[100] Of the 78% of pledged delegates allocated in primaries and caucuses by May 10, 2016, Clinton had won 54% to Sanders's 46%.[101]"

Which brings us to two other salient points that refute Lubet's analysis. First, national polls and MSNBC ignoramuses don't determine voting in the caucuses and primaries. This has been shown time and time again. Iowa and New Hampshire, Carolina, etc.

Second, the rules have changed, given the way the Dems screwed Sanders last time. This may mean more competition: we'll see.

BTW, I would have taken this post more seriously if Lubet posted it before the first debate. I don't support Biden. But to call for his withdrawing from the race, based on a 90 second hit by Harris, is sort of risible, no?

How can we take seriously off the cuff prescriptions based on internet memes and fleeting "issues" that dominate on MSNBC for a few days ? Doesn't this sort of chatter embody almost EVERYTHING that is wrong with our politics today?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad