I’m not a political junkie. Mostly, I ignore politics as much as. possible but this election year, I’ve been fascinated by those running for the Democratic nomination. I haven’t watched any of the debates because, well, those really aren’t debates and all they seem to be is. from the video clips I’ve seen is some softball questions thrown at the candidates the media want to advance, and for some of the others, either ignore them entirely or press them on questions they wouldn’t on their chosen ones. It’s interesting to hear how the media portray each of them, at least the so-called front runners, as if there’s a huge difference between some of them. Sure, there are differences, but they appear to me to be minor.
It’s disappointing to see, just after voting in two states, for that same media to try and pick winners and losers in the overall process. An example would be at the end of the evening of the New Hampshire primary where, even though Bernie Sanders won, there were some on MSNBC that tried to say that well, he really didn’t win. Why? They pointed to the number of votes that Buttigieg and Klobuchar both received and said something to the effect that these two, in aggregate, received more votes than Sanders and based on him receiving 60^ of the vote in 2016, it was a poor showing. Well 2 things about that: First, there’s no such person as “Aggregate” running so those others have to be viewed individually and second, in 2016 there were 2 candidates and not 7 (or more) on the ballot.
It bothers me that the media seem to be trying yo tear down Sanders. Of course they want anyone but Trump, but it’s what the voters want, isn’t it? If Bernie Sanders is that person, then so be it. when the media try to place their thumb on the electability acale in the general election, all they end up doing, I think, us driving more people to that candidate. When they attempt to show one candidate as extreme and others as “moderate”, well, it’s time to take a closer look. As a conservative, I don’t see any of the early front runners as moderate in any way. Some may be less extreme in their views but then I look back at Barack Obama in 2008 and ask myself, if he could be nominated today? My answer is no. I don’t believe he would be far enough to the left for today’s Democratic electorate (at least the base) and for me, it’s proof that there are no actual moderates on the ballot this time around.
Bernie Sanders draws huge crowds. He is probably the most authentic of the top 4 out of New Hampshire as he pushes the same policies as he did during 2016 and remember, he won 22 states then. He has a constituency which I do not believe any of the others have. I think he scares some democrats and that’s why we see someone like Pete Buttigieg giving him a run for his money right now, but it’s doubtful, to me whether “Mayor Pete” will continue to stay close in the later primaries. Buttigieg is a fresh face, but he doesn’t speak to the issues like Sanders and in fact, you have yo dissect his statements to determine what he actually does believe, if anything. I’m not sure if he’s trying to be Obama-lite but he doesn’t come across anything like the former president. I may be wrong, but I son;t see democrats ever nominating him no matter how hard some in the media push him as a moderate. He’s not and all anyone has to do is listen to what he says on the stup.
Amy Klobuchar may seem more moderate, but I think it’s because she hasn’t received a lot of attention up to now. With her third place finish in New Hampshire, we’ll hear a lot more in the coming weeks leading up to Nevada and South Carolina but the little I have seen, not much of a moderate either. Remember where she’s from: Minnesota which is not and never has been known for electing moderates/ But she may appear more moderate than ELizabeth Warren, who is a caricature of a human being. she keeps trying to “out progressive” Sanders at every turn. I don;t think she actually believes in anything actually and she makes some of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever heard from a candidate (more so than Biden!). What was he latest (as of earlier this week anyway)? She’s going to have a transgender child choose her nominee for Department of Education. Then, the day after New Hampshire, she tells a story of a broke college student that donated 3 of her last 6 dollars to her campaign as if that were something good. Seriously? Is she now going to hit the homeless tent cities looking for donations as well? This is an awful person. I’d like the media to actually do it’s job and attempt to find this young woman to vet that story because she seems to have a huge problem telling the truth, especially about her own life (heritage, kids going to public school, being fired for being pregnant, claiming Bernie told her a woman couldn’t win the presidency, etc.). But again, not even close to being a moderate.
I’m leaving out Biden because I don’t think he now has a chance. I heard someone in the media say recently that unless he has a “blowout” in South Carolina then he’s done. Even then, he probably doesn’t have the staying power.
I want to finish on the media’s last great hope: the 800 pound gorilla (or should I call him the 55-million-dollar-man?) Mike Bloomberg. He may be the last gasp for the media to nominate a “moderate” but he’s already shown on the stump, the opposite. He really doesn’t have a constituency, and it appears that he is trying to buy his way to the nomination. He may well achieve that but then I don’t believe he’ll do well in the general election.
Democrats are looking for the new Barack Obama, but that person just doesn’t exist this cycle.
5 thoughts on “The Democratic Field is Not “Moderate””
I am torn between wanting a clear choice for those who bother to vote and an easier win for Trump. The choice is, of course, between a path that retains what is left of our Constitutional Republic and attempts to restore it somewhat, and a path that leads to more destruction of our Constitutional Republic… and onto Communism. That is very clear with a Sanders and Trump race.
But that may be a dangerous notion, and the choice would be better between any of the others and Trump. Not that any easy win should be a guarantee…people get too cocky over the outcome and they decide they don’t have to vote.
The media decided long ago that only they can choose our presidents. Sanders says all the things that they supposedly want, but they are aware of the reality of the wreckage of his proposals should he be elected and put into play the already growing list of executive orders to kill America with regulations and regulatory committees.
So they back Joe Biden, who could be controlled, or a guy who has been an unsuccessful mayor, who can be intimidated and controlled by the establishment that has been trying to control Trump. Power is a terrible thing to lose for these elites….well, power and fortunes.
Pingback: Tulsi Gabbard: Honorable Mention | Conservative Skeptic
Pingback: Tulsi Gabbard: Honorable Mention | Conservative Skeptic
In this context, “moderate” is a relative term. Sanders and Warren and less moderate than the rest. Those described as moderate or centrist tend to have more moderate policies designed to make less drastic changes. I think the progressive vs. moderate split reflects what has been happening in the Democratic party for some time. Do voters want big change quickly or small change slowly?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm. I think the media refers to them as “moderates” to drive voters away from Sanders specifically. I mean, I heard someone on MSNBC the other night actually refer to Warren as a moderate and no one corrected her.