Title : If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?
link : If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?
If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?
I'm trying to read "The Presidential Nominating Process Is Absurd/We have an unnecessarily weak presidential field, especially the incumbent" by David Leonhardt (in the NYT). To me, the headline looks fluffed up with various distractions, and a more honest statement would be "We have an puzzlingly weak field of Democratic candidates" or "We have an alarmingly weak field of Democratic candidates."If Trump is the weakest candidate of all, the Democrats wouldn't look so weak. They'd be just fine. That "especially the incumbent" feels incoherent, and it seems to be offered as a sop to depressed and scared NYT readers. And then, let's talk about how there's something bad about the "process." It's absurd!
But I will read this thing for you. The focus is the process:
[The nominating process] has come to resemble a reality television show, in which a pseudo-scientific process (polls plus donor numbers) winnows the field... Until recently, the United States... gave party leaders a larger role in selecting nominees. Today’s leaders have abdicated this job... When voters are given the dominant role in choosing a nominee — as with primaries here — only an unrepresentative subset tends to participate...These might be good ideas, but like the current process, if they were tried, there would be unintended consequences, and there'd be no going back to the old process, which will have been demonized. They can't go back to the process that got demonized as "elitist," and they sure won't be able to go back to a process that will have been demonized as "overwhelmingly white."
A better approach would balance snapshots of popular opinion with rules more likely to produce strong, qualified nominees... It makes more sense for only the true polling leaders to be guaranteed debate slots. Beyond them, the party could set aside at least one spot for a governor and perhaps one for a senator from a large state or swing state.
A second set of changes would involve the primaries themselves. More states should adopt ranked-choice voting.... It’s also past time to end the special treatment that Iowa and New Hampshire receive, by always voting first. They are two overwhelmingly white, disproportionately baby boomer states..... The primary calendar should... rotate every four years, with the first states always including a mix of states: big and small, young and old, urban and rural, coastal and heartland....
But, go ahead — rotate those primary states. Jump off that precipice with no way to climb back. I think we have the "absurd" process for a reason. The more absurd, the more reason. But maybe the reason is nefarious. Go ahead — expose the nefarious reason.
Thus articles If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?
that is all articles If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents? with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/12/if-hes-so-weak-why-dont-democrats-look.html
0 Response to "If he's so weak, why don't the Democrats look like formidable opponents?"
Post a Comment