Question for Democrats and Republicans:

I'm afraid that I've been guilty of that, Frank.

Writing as a Democrat, it didn't matter as much when the GOP ran reasonable candidates, you could vote on principles and, ideally, enough people shared your principles to give your candidate a victory in November, or at least make a good showing, putting them in good stead for another run next election cycle. And you could count on the Republican winner to uphold the Constitution, resist attempts at bribery, and generally cast responsible votes on the issues that really mattered.

There have been exceptions. Competent but mixed-raced, Obama might have been a gamble, but he was well-spoken, obviously intelligent, and genuinely exciting – people were sick of Bush II and we were willing to support him in the primaries and vote him into office.

I suspect a lot of Republicans ditched Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, Christie, et al and voted for Trump in '16 after he started winning, asking themselves, "how much damage could he really do?" After twenty-odd years of undeserved vilification it was "anyone but Hillary".

Michelle Obama recently said that the US, "isn't ready for a female president" – it's too bad, but I think she's right. It's an indictment of the electorate, not the candidate.

I'm afraid that I've been guilty of that, Frank.

I've got more to say in response to your comments, Hightor, but I've got a lot on my plate at the moment. I'll try to get to it tomorrow afternoon.

It's going to be really dicey. First, you've got all the partisan redistricting going on right now. And you've got the courts filled with Republican appointees – many of whom, as you know, are terrible. We'll see how this midterm election goes but if the Dems don't make historically huge gains in '28 they won't even be able to begin repairing the damage. And then in '30 there's federally-mandated redistricting. If we don't have an absolutely humming economy the voters are going to blame the people in office – for everything Trump screwed up; you know how that goes. I've said it before – I kind of wish I'd dropped dead right after Obama's first inauguration; could have gone out feeling pretty good about the USA.

It feels a lot like this is what happened in '20. And I say this as someone who likes Joe Biden.

I imagine the prevailing thought for a lot of people six years ago was to get someone in there and worry about the details later. This is not a recipe for a great presidency. It's the recipe for an okay presidency, I feel. Which I think is how Joe's presidency was, although he was particularly good for labor and infrastructure, with transportation as a standout.

All of which was undone by Trump due to vindictiveness. Vindictiveness is not a good way to run anything, particularly a country. Take spite out of the equation, and the US is never taken out of the treaties negotiated under Obama. With those still in place, we never go to war with Iran.

I digress, but I think we will need someone who will govern without spite. And who is a skilled enough orator to make it clear to the right that undoing Trump's policies isn't being done out of spite or to just remake everything over in the left's image. It's to save and help heal our country.

See, this is the thing that I think a lot of the left gets wrong, where they complain that Reconstruction didn't go far enough and as a result, we now have this. I won't deny that Andrew Johnson chickened out. He absolutely did. But he and Lincoln were hamstrung. To maintain the Union they had just defended, Lincoln at least realized that behaving like Sherman throughout the South and devastating it was not going to endear the Union to anyone. It was more likely to sow the seeds of another rebellion.

We definitely saw this with the punishing Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI.

If the next administration looks at all spiteful, or like they're changing just for the sake of change, then that will continue to feed the narrative that nothing ever changes, both sides are the same, and voting doesn't matter. That's how something like Project 2025 succeeds.

So, I suppose in a roundabout way I come down on more the side of electability. But not to just run the table with leftward policies. Rather, it would be to introduce something thats been AWOL in politics since 2008—compromise.

And I honestly have no idea who could fill the bill.

It still makes me sad that my grand daughter knew Obama as her first President and really glommed onto Hillary for the next. She was shocked, but I'm thinking during most of my long life that too many people are racist and will never vote for a Black person for the White House, and I had little faith that a woman would be elected. I was trilled about Obama, disappointed about Hillary and Kamala but was also very alert to the 'usual' gossip that follows women in government. It was a losing situation, for all the wrong reasons. However, I'm gloriously happy that that stunted idiot flake Sarah Palin didn't win the VP position. I was afraid she would spread butter up all the stairs in the White House to become the next President.

Rather, it would be to introduce something thats been AWOL in politics since 2008—compromise.

Quote:

Rather, it would be to introduce something thats been AWOL in politics since 2008—compromise.

Spot on, as usual, jespah.

I wish my progressive friends could understand this. "Incrementalism" has become a term of opprobrium but people who wish for radical reform (and I count myself in this group) have to realize that, without overwhelming public support, the swift imposition of major sociopolitical change is undemocratic and will be resisted. It's always the same cycle – one party gets into power and tries to enact its programs. When these don't bear fruit in a few months (!) or some unconnected event attracts national attention, progress grinds to a halt, voters grow resentful, and the ruling party gets a drubbing in the next election. A president skilled in communication and the art of compromise is dangerous to the political opposition. The Clinton presidency is a good example. Had this mediocre man, but gifted politician, exercised a little personal discipline and handed the reins successfully to Gore, does anyone think the condition of this country in 2008 wouldn't have been substantially better? Continue the good things that his predecessor had set into motion, improve them as needed, show people that government can work, and hand power over to someone who hasn't been elected with a promise to erase all the work of the past sixteen years.

When Obama, a decent man, a good communicator, but maybe not as skilled a politician, took over from Bush II, the electorate was craving change again. The opposition pretty much at once realized that their best tactic was going to be "no compromise". Mitch McConnell said as much – "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” – because if Obama were allowed to achieve his goals in a bipartisan manner and actually succeed, he might be seen as a great president. And so we got the ACA, which barely passed, got no Republican votes, and has been picked apart and weakened by them at every opportunity. "To hell with sick people, we have to make sure this program sucks."

So, let's imagine that we elect a potentially great president, committed to healing our divisions, working across the aisle, and offering a vision that looks ahead, not to the past. Hypothetically this president might be from either , any, or no party, but realistically I picture a Democrat. And I can all too easily see the first big bipartisan bill being attacked for "not going far enough", for the president to be accused of "selling out", or being loaded with unconnected riders and poison pills by special interests. I think it's more constructive to get a program going and continually improve it than to shut it off because it doesn't pass some groups ideological muster. As Voltaire said, "Perfect is the enemy of good."

I kind of wish I'd dropped dead right after Obama's first inauguration; could have gone out feeling pretty good about the USA.

So, I suppose in a roundabout way I come down on more the side of electability. But not to just run the table with leftward policies. Rather, it would be to introduce something thats been AWOL in politics since 2008—compromise.

And I honestly have no idea who could fill the bill.

There is NO compromise with a segment of the population that thinks women should have NO rights to their bodily autonomy, African American representation muted as to not even a quiet whisper, or non cis-non white people should be thrown out of society. A separation of Church and State must be re-instated.