Open Mike: Who You Gonna Call? (OT)

Sorry I'm late getting started this morning, but I'm feeling physically ill.

Can't quite figure out why. It's not my stomach; I don't have a headache; I don't have a fever. What could it be?

Oh yeah, it's my soul.

My soul is nauseous and it feels like barfing. Yeah, that's it.

Let's just stipulate right here that I probably shouldn't write anything this morning. The reason I'm getting a late start is that I had to take a block of time and bash out a towering screed—just to try to make myself feel a little less ill in the soul, you know? But my English reader/friend Tom, who screened it for me, says it's "a little raw" and I take it that's an example of English understatement.

But I have to ask my fellow Democrats and anti-Republicans (and now, anti-Populist-Insurgents) a question: who we gonna get next time? Who are we going to choose to champion the flag of traditional American liberal democracy in 2020? Should be someone who sees clearly, if you get the allusion. (Waaanh-waa.)

It can't be a cranky hundred-year-old Jewish socialist with a clear view of what's wrong but no plan to make it right.

It needs to be somebody with enough moxie for the fight, someone broadly likeable, someone without a lot of baggage—and, clearly, a male, because America would probably, I don't know, elect a male orang-outang from the forest over a highly qualified female with tons of experience who spent her whole life preparing for the job. Hypothetical example.

Russ Feingold is one of the best politicians in the history of the United States, but he's going to be 67 in 2020 and he just lost a Senate campaign to a [highly insulting description deleted] plastics manufacturer, albeit one seated high atop a giant heap of Koch millions, which doesn't speak all that well for his (Feingold's) draw in the hinterlands. Elizabeth Warren has the moxie and her views are right on track, but she didn't want to run this time and darn, she doesn't have the right chromosomes for this particular country, more's the pity. And she's going to be 71 in 2020. I'm only 59 and I get tired at the thought of driving to Buffalo once.

So who we gonna get? We need a champion. We need somebody good. And we need to start looking right now, because I don't know if you noticed but the house just caught fire.

One thing seems clear—20/20, pardon again the same bad pun—we have to decide. The party rank and file, that is. Us grassroots. If we let the DNC decide, the DNC that served us up the female Walter Mondale, avatar of the Clinton Restoration, '90s nostalgia, business as usual, it will no doubt give us whatever loyal insider who's next in line, and then any fool fake billionaire from reality TV could probably beat her. Him. Whatever.

Suggestions?

I've written too much, I see. I really shouldn't write anything today. I know that.

I have a feeling I will, though. It'll be good for my soul.

Mike
(Thanks to Tom Burke)

"Open Mike" is the off-topic editorial page of TOP, when Yr. Hmbl. Ed. rambles afield. It normally appears on Wednesdays.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Terry: "Mike, Mike, Mike! It's not that America doesn't want a woman president. It's that the Democrats don't. Let's look at the numbers:

Turnout 2012 for Obama: 65.9m; 2016 for Clinton: 59.1m; difference = –6.8m

2012 for Romney: 60.9m; 2016 for Trump: 59m; difference  = –1.9m

"Bear in mind that we just elected a person with negatives in the 60% range. The Democrats own this mistake. They didn't even have an opposition candidate like the Republicans did—Evan McMullin."

Mike replies: It's true. It looks very much like this election was the fault of Democratic voters...about 5 million of them, or thereabouts, who all told pollsters of their support for Clinton and then didn't bother to go vote.

Ironically, many (as individuals) might have not voted because the polls were so certain Clinton was going to win. It made them complacent. The pollsters weren't even that wrong, although it certainly looked like they were. They just needed to add a crucial caveat to their forecasts: "Clinton has an 85% [or whatever] chance of winning assuming everyone who supports her actually votes." 

Bruce: "God bless America. And keep Trump safe. Personally, I'm having a great year. First the Scottish referendum, then Brexit and now Donald. I can't see how any sane person could possibly have considered voting for Clinton given everything that's known about her. As Trump rightly said, 'A nasty woman.'"

John: "Any other Democrat could have beaten Trump. The system needs a shake-up. The problem is that the voters picked the wrong person to provide it. What amazes me is that half the country could vote for such a vile person. Where's decency?"

Michael Roche: "To the concerned outsider looking at America it is blatantly obvious your country is a deeply unequal society in both opportunity, living standards, healthcare, education, etc., etc., and your political establishment is either incapable of doing anything to remedy these problems or the people elected to public office are not concerned about these injustices. Quite honestly there was not a lot of difference between a career political insider of long standing who seemed to be happy with the status quo and could not be bothered to come up with even half a plan to improve things and a charlatan TV personality/business tycoon whipping up hatred and division and false hopes for the poor and disenfranchised of the richest country in the western world. All this played out in some sort of dystopian reality show daily for all to see on TV and in print media and all the overpaid pundits and so-called experts could contribute was that Trump cannot win, i.e. Hilary will win, and we can carry on as normal, nothing will change, people will continue to lose their jobs and homes, African Americans will still get shot by law enforcement officers and stand a much greater chance of getting put in prison than their white fellow citizens. None of this will improve under Trump but if these are the only choices presented to the electorate of this once great land of opportunity then no one should be surprised if tweedledum gets elected and not tweedledee."

Al C.: "Mike, another crushed soul here. I am a naturalized citizen. America gave me so much, for which I am eternally grateful, and which I can never fully repay. However, is this still my country? Why do 50% want to take it back? Back from whom?"

Mike replies: My sister-in-law had a neighbor explain to her that he supports Trump because he hates immigrants. My sister-in-law has a heavy Ukrainian accent. Evidently her neighbor did not make the connection.

John Camp: "I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat, voted for Hillary, was stunned by the election, and at the same time, think the Democrats (but not the county) got what they deserved. The Democrats were beaten by people for whom they've shown nothing but disdain for decades, Democratic elites who have lived lives that began with Harvard and Yale, and who constantly let slip their disdain—the 'clutching to guns and religion,' from Obama, and 'basket of deplorables' from Hillary. Our free trade agreements have undoubtedly helped lift much of the poor world, from Mexico to India to China, to some prospect of prosperity, while leaving our own Midwestern rust belt in despair.

"Trump is a racist, a sexist, quite possibly a criminal in several different ways. I'm hoping the shock of his election will help create a Democratic Party that goes back to its working-class roots; that would not include anyone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, but there are a number of good solid Democratic governors out there who might fill the bill, though they are not yet political stars."

Mike replies: A book for ya.

Amin (partial comment): "I didn't sleep at all last night. My kids woke up this morning asking if this means everyone hates us. Have been trying to convince them and myself that everything will be okay.

"I do admire you for writing about this today. You could easily lose some readers over it."

Withheld: "Well I guess this is the last time I read this blog, despite having enjoyed it otherwise for years. I felt the same as you four years ago. Life goes on. Take care."

Mike replies: Wait, you're confused. Your guy won this time.

Alan Carmody: "Mike, I know this is your blog but with the greatest possible respect, one of the reasons I come here is...to get away from the politics."

Mike replies: Well, there won't be much of it. With a blog as wide-ranging as this one, not everything is for everyone. Some things are for most of the readers, some things are for just a few; like a newspaper or a magazine, as a reader you have to pick and choose.

I'd hope that as much as 80% of the contents are appealing to most readers, and I don't know how low the percentage could go before a particular reader would go wandering away...60%? 40%? But not everything is for everyone, that much is certain.

Comments

[Jack]

I disliked both candidates. Trumps for oh so obvious reasons (hint: slime & crime). Clinton for being so arrogant to think she was the automatic candidate despite no new ideas and baggage out the whazoo. Her problems became apparent when she barely beat Bernie for the nomination.

Trumps was foisted on us not for his abilities to be a decent president (ha!), but as a punishment for overlooking the many who've been left behind.

So we get to suck it up and take our medicine. Then try to get it right next time.

Until then we'll have to endure the Groper in Chief of the new DAWG* Party.

Yikes!

(*Dumb Ass White Guys)

[Robert Roaldi]

It was no surprise that the citizens revolted against the status quo. But I doubt that this President is going to improve things. I see no evidence that he cares about US citizens or the country in general, I detect in him no vision for the future. I don't think that the purpose of a country is just to be a support system for buying and selling stuff to each other. That's a thin thread to hang a culture on.

The upside that I see is that he won't do any of the things he said he would. Take just two of them: deporting all illegal immigrants and building the Mexican wall. Each of those would require many years of sustained effort and investment of huge sums of money, spanning several administrations. There's no way that short-sighted current day politicians can embark on long-term projects like those. No one has the attention span anymore, not them, not their voters.

I hope what is left of real journalism will supply some adult supervision over the next few years.

[Ivo]

Mike, I'm glad you posted this. I don't understand the complaints that politics have no place here as this is a photography site. A monumental event such as this deserves a response, and I actually came here expecting it. To me, the biggest shock is not the result, but the complacency of voters that stayed home and let Trump be elected by a number of votes on par with Romney's loss in 2012. Wasn't this suppose to be THE election?

[Andrew Molitor]

I understand the Trump voters, in all their various colors and reasons. Roughly. I *get* it. I don't agree, but I get it.

The important variety is the one who recognized, correctly, that Hillary is one of the oligarchs who have ruined a lot of stuff, that she's not a standard issue machine politician, that she's kind of ethically sketchy (No, she's not a criminal, she's not especially terrible, that's all made up by the media and her enemies -- but she is Typical for our politicians, and Typical is fairly bad).

What I cannot grasp, fully, is why those voters then gave their vote to someone who is all the things they despise about Hillary except a professional politician. Oligarch? Check. Ethically sketchy? Check. Basically a pretty awful person? Check.

I hold out one slender ray of hope, and very slender it is. Thomas Becket was pretty awful too until he got a really important job.

It's your blog and I absolutely support your right to publish whatever you like. I don't always agree with you, but I keep reading.

(Because I am not a child to flounce off in a fury at the first spot of friction)

[Dave Kee]

On November 1, I wrote: "If Hillary ends up losing to one of the most unqualified people ever to run for president it will not be because of her e-mails. There are three reasons. 1) She clearly does not believe that private citizens have a Constitutional right to own a firearm. This is why she does not support the Heller decision of the Supreme Court and supports an Austrailian type gun confiscation buy-back program. This position alone costs her millions of votes in blue collar and rural America. 2) Democrats seem to support unlimited immigration and while few support a wall or returning current illegals to their home countries, wide open immigration is not favored either. We have 322 million people in this country. It's enough. 3) A continued policy of one-sided free trade under which the benefits flow to the one percent and the losses in jobs to the 99%, and never ending trade imbalances result in the country's assets being purchased by foreigners with our own money has become intolerable. With President Obama continuing to push the flawed Transpacific Partnership, the Democrats' position on this issue is not clear. If she loses, Democrats are going to have to rethink their policy positions on these issues."
BTW, I voted for her.

[John Wilson]

There will b 25 democratic senate seats up in midterm in two years, one name mentioned here is already changing her tune Elizabeth Warren, as a north easterner she will never b any thing but a regional candidate. The instinct of self survival will take over and these 25 will not rock the boat, so I anticipate a lot of Trump agenda will pass . To me this election clears the decks of dynasties, Clinton Bush Obama and Romney. Keep draining the swamp!

[Darrell Marquette]

Trump was just smarter. How about all those MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats they made and then sold to their supporters. Clinton decided to hang around with big name entertainers and Hollywood types. Trump's approach appealed to the middle class while Clinton's approach did not.

[James]

Thanks for posting this Mike. I was glad to see it. I think these are dangerous times, and I hope very much that everybody who thinks the same will stand up and show themselves.

As for those who wish Mike wouldn't publish this sort of thing: You're asking for someone other than Mike to run the blog! Plus, c'mon: one or two heartfelt posts, on a day of such yuuuge significance in post-war American (and possibly world) politics? We can all handle that, can't we?

[Robert Fogt]

We are ALL Griswolds, now............
And we've just elected Cousin Eddie to the White House.

[Hans Muus]

Sorry to chime in so late. Let me begin with making clear that also to almost everyone I know in my country (The Netherlands, a nation of 17 million people on an area 1/16 the size of Texas), this is a very serious if not frightening turn of events.
But now over to photography and what may be the first casualty in this regime change: what is going to happen to Pete Souza? Has he been mentioned anywhere after November 8?

[Every president picks his own White House photographer. Not all of them in the past have been official, even. Pete will most likely leave when President and Mrs. Obama leave. --Mike]

[TBannor]

"It's clear that 51% of Americans are racist, xenophobic, ignorant, credulous fools."

Remember, Trump lost the popular vote, so 51% is probably an overstatement. I don't believe everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. Sadly misinformed, yes and they voted against their own interests. Hardcore racists probably make up less than 10% of the U.S. population.

There is, however, a huge swath of white, rural America that is in despair. Jobs are few. Drug use and alcoholism is rampant. Their death rate is higher now than in other groups. They feel neglected, left out and left behind. They think they've found a champion, but they'll be sadly disillusioned in short order. The jobs they use to have aren't coming back, no matter who is in the White House.

The really sad thing is, these people don't get that they have way more in common with inner city blacks than they do with Donald Trump and his ilk. This was pointed out in the recent SNL "Black Jeopardy" skit; featuring Tom Hanks as a rural Trump supporter playing against two black contestants; one of the most politically astute sketches Saturday Night Live has ever produced.

[Edward Taylor]

I am commenting late so I suspect my comment will not get read by many, but I actually know the solution for progressives. Do not nominate any politician. If the Democrats want to win, forget qualifications or experience completely.This is America after all. Education, knowledge and competence are all optional and perhaps they are a detriment. Democrats need to nominate someone who is already famous and well liked. A handsome or well groomed male actor or athlete perhaps. One that the ladies will like, but not so handsome that men will be too jealous. Someone who is an excellent public speaker and who is eminently likable. This position should be cast just like a part in a movie.

To sum this concept up, is there anyone who doesn't think that Tom Hanks would be unstoppable?

[Dennis Ng]

Whoever can fire up the bases.
Whoever who does not hate by others.
Whoever can get a message we can remember (change, get a bad again)
It is not a choice based on gender. There should not be an equal opportunity act for president.
I listen as outsider ... sanders and the orange boy can say thing that at least rang someone ring some bells; even some messages like free education (not a good idea as orange kid should not get free education even though lots should) which at least you can remember abd argue with.
I listen to two debates (record the 3rd but do not bother). What she said other than praising herself as a woman and experienced.
Sorry. Fire your base and message to remember.
Change.

[brian jewish hockenstein]

long time listener, first time caller... i'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a second but please enlighten me on what the word "jewish" adds to what you are saying. seems slightly racist to me on first glance...

[Thinking only of general-election electability issues. Might even have been wrong about that, this time.

FWIW, my brother and I have a game we play every four years: who would you pick to be president if you could have anybody at all? My pick this go-round was Russ Feingold, and he's jewish. Or at least was born to a jewish family (I don't know how or what he practices, religion-wise). He's approximately the anti-Trump in more or less every way--highly principled, benevolent, altruistic, extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, independent-minded and not beholden to factions, and experienced. We should have been so lucky.

...Although, in the "we should be so lucky" vein, even "President Mitt Romney" sounds comparatively good right about now. You know what they say: Oh well. --Mike]

[Doug Thacker]

I kept hearing and reading that he had almost no chance. "Clinton has many paths to victory," they said, "Trump almost none. He'd need a miracle to win." Now, it's we who need the miracle. At the risk of stating the obvious, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

I commend you for using your blog to take a stand, Mike - especially since it's a stand I mostly agree with. But I take exception to your characterization of Sanders. He could have won, and almost certainly would have. I think it was Nancy Pelosi, if I'm not mistaken, who in a surprise statement late in the primaries advised the selection of Sanders, saying, "It takes a left wing populist to beat a right wing populist." You can say he didn't have a plan, but he certainly had more of one than Trump, hey? Not to mention a great deal more intelligence and experience in governing.

But it was not to be, alas, because the Clinton machine and the DNC were so intent on coronating Clinton. In fairness to them, though, maybe they felt this was a safe thing to do, because anybody, they must have reasoned, could beat Trump . . . .

We'll see what happens, I guess. The country has been lurching to the right since Nixon, at least, taking the political center, and the rest of the world, along with. No reason to think this rightward movement is going to stop anytime soon. Certainly not going by recent lights. On the other hand, though, history is nothing if not surprising. We just have to survive long enough to get through it.

[NucularHolyWarrior]

Ghostbusters, obviously.

However if they are not available, change your message, at least.

https://youtu.be/whk68Q6rAfk

[jeff]

Something that seems to be lost in all the histrionic hand wringing over the election result are the vote totals from this and the prior two elections.

In 2008, 2012, and now in 2016 the republican candidate received just about 60 million votes.

In 2008, Obama received 69 million. In 2012, 65 million. In 2016 only 60 million.

If she had managed to convince about 1% more of Obama's voters that she was worth getting off the couch about, she'd have won.

The result wasn't due to some big groundswell of support for the republican party, or from rednecks and racists coming out of the closet. No, it was from an apparently building disappointment with the current administration combined with the democrats' utter ineptitude at selecting a candidate and the execution of her campaign.

Viewed through this lens har har there's much less to be panicking about.