2020 Visions

As Joe Biden accidentally announces his candidacy for president (bringing the total to 16 or 17 Democrats), Bob Hennelly argues against more of the same old politics.

Decades of depressed wages, social disinvestment, undiagnosed mental illness and a deepening housing affordability crisis are the legacy of a bipartisan neglect by a political class, that up until very recently, were entirely absorbed with their own re-election and wealth accumulation.

And only the surreal buffoonery of a [Fuckface von Clownstick] makes this professional political class look respectable. Keep in mind, without the neglect of working-class America by this bipartisan cadre of self-dealing moderates you don’t get [Dear Leader].

[T]he sorry state of the nation’s EMS workforce maybe the best example of the 911 emergency working class Americans are all grappling with. Now is not time for moderation. That’s how we got here.

And yet, Andrew O'Hehir suggests that historically Democrats have stuck to limited options.

It may be that all that can realistically be accomplished in the 2020 election is hitting the pause button, or slowing rather than stopping the political and civic decay of our republic.

Update (March 19):  Everybody "knows" the Democrats can't nominate anyone too left without risking the election. Jim Sleeper notes the media is only too happy to point out the Democrat's socialism problem while ignoring the Republican's fascism problem.

Also, are we to believe Joe Biden deserves support for being the "most progressive" candidate while Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren don't because they are too progressive?

Update (March 23):  Joe Conason notes "socialism" is still used as a pejorative even as "social democratic" policies are common around the world and even in the U.S.

Maybe we should spend less time worrying about confusing propaganda and more on the actual problems and prospects of Americans in a changing world. That would require Republicans to abandon their timeworn scare tactics, and explain how they would advance the pursuit of happiness and the common good.

Update (April 21):  Kevin Robillard and Amanda Terkel want to know: who's electable?

More than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters thought it was more important to nominate the candidate most likely to win, with only 36% placing more importance on ideology, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll from late March.

Update (April 30):  Joseph Natoli wonders if Democrats are crazy.

While the Republican Party is unified by having given ownership to [Dear Leader], the Democratic Party is once again trying to represent four different political persuasions, namely, Liberal Third Way triage, Leftist anti-plutarchy, Diversity/Identity missionaries, and Climate Change Paul Reveres. We can expect that these four different dramatis personae on the Primary debate stage will tear into each other until they settle down and just tear into an emerging favorite of the polls. It would be crazy to stoke [Fuckface's] fire but I doubt if the Democrats can stop themselves.

Update (May 3):  Potentially good news if this trend holds up.

Update (May 5):  Supporter Norman Solomon describes the difference between Sanders and the current front-runner.

Biden vs. Bernie offers a huge contrast between a corporatist whose biggest constituencies can be found on Wall Street and in corporate media vs. a progressive populist whose biggest constituencies can be found among those being ripped off by Wall Street and discounted by corporate media.

Update (May 6):  Amanda Marcotte disputes what an "electable" candidate looks like.

[The] implication that Democrats have to choose between progressive politics and winning elections remains a sacred doctrine in mainstream media circles. There is no real evidence for this proposition.

The idea is that [moderate] candidates ... will scoop up voters, mainly in suburban areas, who often vote Republican but are gettable because they're economically conservative [yet] basically cool with issues like gay marriage and abortion rights.

The problem is that this category of voters, who would be called "libertarians" in political science circles, don't really exist in American politics. As Paul Krugman of the New York Times noted in February, these fabled economically conservative but socially liberal voters only constitute about 4% of the electorate. This is in contrast with the consistently liberal (45% of voters), economically liberal but socially conservative (29%), and the consistently conservative (23%).

All of which is to to say that the "centrist" model for a Democrat has it exactly backwards. If the goal is to win over swing voters in Midwestern states, the winning strategy isn't to back an economically centrist candidate like Biden, but a Democrat who appeals so strongly to these voters with progressive economic policies that they're willing to set aside the racial resentment that led them to vote for [Dear Leader].

[V]oters aren't really inspired by playing it safe or moving to the center. Instead, candidates do better by convincing voters that this election is a historic moment and they don't want to be left on the sidelines.

Update (May 17):  Kevin Robillard identifies three camps among Democrats:

Unity: Biden, along with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and a host of centrist elected officials, are unapologetic about working with Republicans and believe they can still advance Democratic goals even while compromising with the GOP.
Revolution: Sanders promises a political revolution that begins with the American public and then goes to Washington, bringing intense pressure to bear on politicians to adopt progressive priorities.
Change The System: Warren wants to fundamentally alter the rules of Washington’s power structure, weakening the influence lobbyists and corporations have over policy outcomes.

Update (June 1):  Governor Jay Inslee earned the highest rating on the Greenpeace USA Climate Scorecard. Senator Bernie Sanders was second while Joe Biden was scarcely ahead of Fuckface von Clownstick.

Update (June 2):  Keith Spencer revisits a paper by Thomas Piketty and argues that middle-of-the-road is a losing position.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe?

[But] nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — e.g. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win back those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, e.g. many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in between.

Update (June 5):  Richard Wolff summarizes American economic history over the past several decades.

[This history] holds lessons for 2020. A return to the past in Democratic Party rhetoric, symbolism, and personalities (such as Biden) is a recipe to repeat political mistakes and losses since 2016. Biden will likely lose for the Democrats as the comparably backward-looking Bob Dole did for the Republicans in 1996 ... . Another lesson is that Sanders is the Democrats' best hope unless and until other plausible candidates take clear, strong positions to Sanders' left. One such position might articulate the working class's sufferings as systemically derived from a declining capitalism and thus propose system change as a solution: such as change to an economy based on worker coops instead of hierarchical capitalist firms. Such positions would provide on the left more attractive, bold and new plans than what [Dear Leader] offers on the right.

Update (June 9):  Bob Hennelly praises Senator Elizabeth Warren's economic ideas.

[T]he reality is that the specificity of her plans, like her student debt elimination proposal, along with her "let’s get this done" entreaty make her engaging. All of her programs, from her green manufacturing proposal to her free college plan are parts of an integrated economic strategy to flip the script, not by half-measures but by bold strokes on the scale of FDR.

Update (June 16):  Andrew O'Hehir thinks there's only about a half dozen serious Democratic contenders and a few others with unique messages.

But the rest of you down there in the Gillibrand-Hickenlooper vortex, a swirling mass from which no light or energy can escape? Get thee gone. Gillibrand will have to carry the Al Franken thing to her grave; I don’t claim that’s fair. Hickenlooper has found out that the "white guy pissing on socialism" lane is already clogged up with Joe-mentum. Bennet, Ryan, Swalwell, de Blasio — whatever your exercise in pointless vanity was meant to prove, your toast is blackened and getting cold. I won’t say “nice try,” because it’s not true. Enough already.

Update (June 19):  Amanda Marcotte says Dear Leader's reelection arguments amounts to "vote for me to stick it to the liberals". But, she doesn't think Joe Biden solves that problem.

This over-the-top hatred of liberals on the right is no doubt why so many Democrats currently think that Biden, the centrist former vice president with a fondness for good-ol'-boy politics, is more "electable," on the grounds that he might not provoke the kind of loathing [von Clownstick] supporters have for more progressive (or more female) Democrats.

But what those Democrats fail to understand is that Biden is highly vulnerable to an even more toxic kind of right-wing trolling, the kind that both stokes right-wing hatred and demoralizes and demobilizes the left: Accusations of hypocrisy.

Update (June 20):  In an interview with David Dayen, Senator Elizabeth Warren argues government should "fight on the side of the people".

[T]he question is who government works for. ... [F]or 40 years now, the mantra in Washington and in most of the Republican Party and a big chunk of the Democratic Party has all centered around Ronald Reagan’s "What are the nine worst words in the English language? I’m from the government and I’m here to help." Ha ha ha. The idea that it’s government that poses the threat to all of the rest of America and must be held at arm’s length, and missing the fact that it’s government that balances out the power of these giant corporations. And without an effective government to enforce antitrust laws—and other laws—we’re all in trouble.

And Andrew O'Hehir suggests the primary will be over quickly, possibly to Joe Biden's benefit.

Update (June 26):  Rob Hager argues Senator Elizabeth Warren is the progressive choice for president.

Update (July 28):  Paul Rosenberg is looking for some offense. He quotes Representative Ilhan Omar responding to being told to go back to where she came from and fix their problems.

[T]he beauty of this country is not that our democracy is perfect. It’s that embedded in our Constitution and democratic institutions are the tools to make it better.

Rosenberg berates the Democratic establishment for being too passive.

Democrats live in fear ... Fear that Republicans will say mean things about them — and won’t vote for them.

Indeed, actual Republicans almost certainly won't vote for them. But there are plenty of other folks out there. Not just independents and "swing voters," but large numbers of non-voters and only-sometimes voters, as well as the Democratic base. Non-voters overwhelmingly support Democrats, as shown in this graphic from last year's "Future of the Party" report from Data for Progress and Justice Democrats:

Furthermore, a broad range of progressive policies have majority support — sometimes supermajority support:

Rosenberg argues that "an offensive stance means setting the agenda — defining both the terms and the subject of debate".

For a cowardly, racist bully like [Manbaby] to pick on a group of four progressive congresswomen of color, and try to make them the scary face of the Democratic Party — that’s a no-brainer. But for the Democratic Party to say, "Yeah, that’s our face. What are you really afraid of, anyway?" That would take understanding, and great courage. It’s the key to winning — not just in 2020, but in terms of America's future.

Update (July 31):  Senator Elizabeth Warren stands up for progressive ideas:

I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.

Update (August 3):  Keith Spencer argues that genuine left politics must be built on class-based analysis in order to solve social problems. And so he criticizes two tendencies found among certain candidates.

[M]uch of American liberalism is trapped politically between two false gods: the utopian technologists of Silicon Valley and the “power of love” crowd exemplified by [Marianne] Williamson. Both are unworkable paths to social change.

Update (August 14):  Sophia McClennen uses polling to suggest centrist Democrats don't really exist anymore and that the more accurate term is corporatist Democrat.

[I]f the largest voting bloc [millennials and Gen Z adults who will comprise 37 percent of the electorate] values meaningful policies over "electability," then doesn’t that actually redefine the very idea of who is electable? Based on the numbers, the most "electable" Democratic candidate will be one whose policies appeal to young voters.

Update (August 25):  Paul Rosenberg argues "hard left" is a term the Right uses to disparage popular policy proposals (listed July 28). He points to research by Rachel Bitecofer that shows the value of motivating base voters and Democratic-leaning independents rather than trying to "win back" certain Republicans.

Update (August 31):  Paul Rosenberg makes a long, detailed case against a "return to normalcy".

A would-be President Biden will not get much more cooperation from the GOP than Obama did, but he will continue to play nice, babbling on about his "good Republican friends" only to have them tar him with everything that goes wrong as a result. All this will make massive midterm losses in 2022 even more likely (à la 1994 and 2010, as I noted here), and will position the GOP to run a more professional and disciplined [fascist] to defeat him in 2024.

None of that is certain, of course. The future never is. But what is certain is that Biden doesn’t give a moment’s thought to any of these grave concerns. He can’t. If he did, he’d have to engage in a much broader discussion of political realities that his entire candidacy is premised on avoiding — not least because his whole political history of defensive political posturing helped to bring about this disastrous state of affairs in the first place.

As just one part of the argument, Rosenberg cites Brad DeLong and Ed Kilgore and their acknowledgement of the failure of the "New Democrats" (neoliberalism).

The descriptive framework Kilgore uses differs slightly from DeLong’s, but the bottom line is the same: a theoretically plausible political economy project failed to find coalition partners, failed to build public support, failed to inspire its base, was met with implacable bad-faith opposition, and thus failed to deliver what it promised.

Put simply: Both men were wrong about the world. As DeLong said, "The world appears to be more like what lefties thought it was than what I thought it was for the last 10 or 15 years." But that’s not a lesson that Biden has learned. In fact, Biden has been significantly more mistaken than most.

Update (September 4):  Amanda Marcotte points to the former Vice President's growing list of misstatements as feeding into a "both sides do it" narrative.

[V]oters could be persuaded to back [Fuckface], however reluctantly, if they get it into their heads that the Democrat is just as bad. And Biden's constant truth-fudging will create that opportunity for [Dear Leader]. This worked wonders on Hillary Clinton, who was subjected to oversized media coverage of a relatively minor email scandal, which convinced voters that both candidates were hopelessly corrupt and so they might as well let [the con man] win.

Electability is the quality that matters most to Democratic primary voters, and that's understandable. More than anything else, they want to get [that asshole] out of office next year. But the reality is that Biden, who is betting everything on the premise of his electability, has the most potential pitfalls of any of the competitive candidates in the primary race. Tuned-in voters are starting to see that, and are drifting away from him. The only question is whether enough voters will see the light before it's too late, and Biden has drifted into the nomination — and a possible electoral disaster.

Update (September 22):  Andrew O'Hehir isn't sure Democrats can escape "the ghosts of the past".

[T]he relationship between our two major parties has become asymmetrical: Democrats cling to norms and standards of a bygone era, Biden-style, and also, by their nature, are driven by principles of dialogue, reasoned discourse and compromise. LOL! Republicans are totally over that shit, and have gone full-on ruthless culture war: They know they can’t win a fair fight on issues and policies, but when it comes to semiotic battle rooted in racism, nationalism and cultural division, they consistently hold the upper hand.

O'Hehir fears "passivity and politeness" will prove to be a doomed strategy.

I get it: Democrats understand either consciously or instinctively that the odds are rigged against them, and the pragmatic response is to lower your expectations into the basement and pursue a short-term victory at almost any cost. So let’s at least get this terrifying idiot out of the White House and replace him with a vaguely normal adult; all that stuff about the dying planet and economic inequality and Medicare for All (not to mention trying to build or restore a functional democracy) will just have to wait.

Even with a presidential victory, top-down "revolution" or reform is not likely to withstand counterattacks.

This is a long-term institutional crisis that no presidential candidate and no articles of impeachment can address, especially not within a degraded pseudo-democratic system in which most voters literally do not count, thanks to extensive gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Redeeming or reforming the Democratic Party is an urgent and necessary task, one that many activists both inside and outside the party are energetically pursuing. It cannot be accomplished overnight, even though time is running out for American democracy, and there is no obvious way around that contradiction. Right now, the grim fact is that the Democratic Party has been perfectly constructed to lose, and no one should act surprised if it keeps on doing so.

Update (October 20):  Paul Rosenberg reflecting on how Democrats need to reframe the political discussion, quotes Ian Haney López:

Stoking racial division has been and remains the most powerful weapon wielded by economic titans and their pocket political party for decades.

If Democrats don't name and defeat this tactic by purposefully building cross-racial solidarity, we will continue to lose on every important issue. We may win some elections, but we won't win enough political power to enact the bold policies needed to ensure our families a meaningful opportunity to thrive, whether we are white, black or brown.

Update (November 11):  A hypothetical Sanders vs incumbent match-up got me thinking: 1) Do "centrist" Democrats think Sanders or Warren would lose any states Clinton won? 2) If no, then the election comes down to six states Obama won twice, but Clinton lost--Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. 3) Could Sanders or Warren have more popular policies than Clinton in those states? 4) If yes, then, almost any three state combination won by the Democrats (excluding the one combination of IA, WI, MI) wins the election. Or, out of 64 total paths for those six states (zero to six wins), 46 or about 72 percent are wins for the Democrats.

Update (November 17):  Paul Rosenberg continues to argue that many progressive policy positions are actually more popular than "moderate" positions. While the results of an Iowa poll

suggests the contradictory desire for a moderate who promises fundamental change, Rosenberg suggests that a progressive agenda and seeking common ground could be "one and the same". He notes that support does vary depending on the issue.

There are several possible ways to read these results: Democrats should embrace the top-tier progressive policies, and abandon the rest; they should put them on hold rather than abandon them; they should embrace the top tier and look for other policy approaches toward the same ends, or new lines of argument to make; they should take different approaches to different issues. All of these are arguably reasonable conclusions ... . What’s not reasonable is a wholesale rejection of progressive policies, and an insistence on chasing after illusory bipartisan solutions that Republicans will vote for. A significant number of Democratic voters will rebel against that. It’s just that simple.

Update (November 24):  "Electability" is a favorite horse race issue. Bernie Sanders needs to make his case in the primary, but why should he be any less electable than any other Democrat? Chris Wright argues that Sanders brings forward popular positions on working class issues. He just doesn't get as much attention from the corporate press as other candidates.

[P]eople tend to like politicians with a simple, consistent, populist message, the message that "I'll fight for you." No one delivers this message more forcefully than Sanders.

Update (December 8):  Candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar don't want to send rich kids to college for free. It sounds as if they're standing up for the middle class, but as Alexis Goldstein points out:

Universal public goods, such as higher education, are widely popular. Universal programs are also far more resilient than income-capped programs, when it comes to withstanding reactionary forces like class resentment and racist backlash.

Keith Spencer notes that in the absence of universal citizen's rights, someone needs to decide who's deserving of these benefits. He cites Wendy Brown who explains that neoliberalism has been an attempt to let markets decide everything. Only Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders push back against the "redistribution of crumbs".

Warren and Sanders are directly challenging neoliberal principles, a challenge strongly embraced by their younger supporters. Sanders is the most overt about it. But both Warren and Sanders are talking about public goods, public provisioning and the value of a vastly expanded social state to challenge inequality and address the climate crisis.

Warren's constant reminder that every successful entrepreneur relies on tax-supported educated labor, technology, city services, transportation, communication and other infrastructure is a direct challenge to the neoliberal value of privatizing everything and valuing only what is marketized.

Update (January 11, 2020):  Senator Bernie Sanders appeals to younger votes due to proposals like forgiveness of student debt. Vice President Joe Biden was responsible for making it impossible to get out of student debt through bankruptcy. And who is among the groups with the greatest potential for increased voter turnout?

[W]hat is imperative is that we defeat [von Clownstick], the most dangerous president in modern history.

[T]hat means you're going to have to have a huge voter turnout. You're going to have to get working people excited, you're going to have to get young people excited.

I just don't think that [Joe Biden's] record is going to bring forth the energy that we need to defeat [Fuckface].

Update (February 3, 2020):  Peter Cohen is trying to stay positive.

What we really need in this country – if there is still any chance left of saving it – are three things: (1) the birth of a broad popular movement for structural change; (2) the development of a serious program for Election Reform to take our democracy back from the banks and corporations that both major parties currently serve; and (3) a mass popular rejection of Corporate Media with its management of the political debate and manufacturing of consent. The Sanders campaign is the best vehicle we have for achieving these things.

Update (March 16, 2020):  Amanda Marcotte suggests Bernie Sanders can point to genuine accomplishment.

Sanders scored a remarkable success simply by staying in the race. Biden committed to a version of the Green New Deal (though not one as bold as Sanders' plan), noting that his own state of Delaware "is three feet above sea level". Biden continued to criticize Medicare for All, but committed to a solution for universal health care that involves a public option. Biden even committed to having a female running mate, the kind of headline-grabbing promise that he can't back away from — and he likely wouldn't have made if Sanders had dropped out.

Perhaps the biggest coup for progressives, however, came earlier in the day, when Biden's campaign announced that he now supports making public colleges and universities tuition-free for students whose families make less than $125,000 a year. Perhaps more interestingly, Biden also announced that he supports Sen. Elizabeth Warren's plan to undo a 2005 bankruptcy bill that allowed the predatory banking industry to rake in huge profits while leaving ordinary Americans swimming in debt.

But in light of the national health emergency, "Sanders has done all he can in this race to pull the eventual nominee to the left" and it's now time to end his campaign.

Update (March 17, 2020):  Nathan Robinson makes a powerful case against Biden and for Sanders. But I'm afraid it's too late.

Update (March 29, 2020):  Anis Shivani considers the failures of the Sanders campaign.

Sanders' "political revolution" was never anything more than a revolution at the ballot box. It never had a street component, and was never meant to. It's true that Bernie Sanders himself has been part of grassroots action of every type since the tragic end of the 2016 campaign, passionately standing with teachers on strike or agitating for better conditions at Amazon and Disney, but direct action was never meant to be a part of the political revolution against the conspiratorial elites.

Without a cascading, intensifying and ever more strident street deployment by some of his legions of young supporters, particularly Latinos and other minorities, there was no chance that the DNC machinations could be counterbalanced. That option was never on the cards, and in fact that tells you all you need to know about the political revolution we were supposed to get behind, with the expectation that it would fell the global oligarchy that holds possession of every form of seen and unseen power. Such an event has never happened in world history, so either we were naïve to believe it could happen or we were taken for a ride.

Update (April 8, 2020):  The Democratic nomination for president this year is decided as Senator Sanders drops out of the race. Tara Golshan notes that his campaign is more relevant now than ever.

Some politicians seemed to discover the benefits of a strong social safety net and aggressive government action only as the country scrambled to deal with the coronavirus outbreak and saw the economy shut down. Sanders has been decrying the immorality of the gaps in the American safety net for a lifetime. His presidential campaign was about families in crisis before the coronavirus pandemic hit.

Update (April 12, 2020):  Andrew O'Hehir thinks the choice is obvious, but all bets are off.

And so a 77-year-old lifetime politician with a long history of dubious tales and questionable conduct — a human archive of every triangular policy decision and every strategic cutback made by the Democratic Party for the last 50 years — will be tarted up and rolled out on stage in the role of Guy Who Will Take America Back From the Guy Who Made America Great Again.

Only a party that hates itself would have made that choice, and only a party that hates itself would be so morbidly obsessed with the unanswerable question of who other people might vote for, and so unwilling to declare what it wants.

But now that Biden is clearly established as the Democratic standard-bearer, polls show him and [Orangeman] effectively even, with an agonizing seven months of uncertainty ahead, made doubly or trebly uncertain by a public health crisis and the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. By all normal political logic, those factors should spell doom for the incumbent president.

And then there's the even bigger and more troubling question of whether a Biden victory in November — likely in some version of a 4 a.m. Electoral College nail-biter — will do anything to address the deeper structural conditions that made [Fuckface von Clownstick] possible in the first place, or to reverse the immense damage of [this] presidency.

[T]his election will be a choice between the party that hates itself and the party that hates reality. That doesn't strike me as an especially difficult decision, but in the context of 2020 America, it's pretty much a coin toss.

Update (May 20, 2020):  Asad Haider notes that the "Old Left" (who were the New Left in the 1960s) is telling the "New Left" of the 21st century to get in line behind Biden. Haider argues this amounts to giving up on the 100 million non-voters in the United States.

To reprimand young people for failing to muster enthusiasm for voting for the lesser evil ultimately amounts to a refusal to recognize the necessity for a greater idea, for a mobilization for structural transformation. In our age of catastrophe, "lesser-evil-ism" is the most unethical position.

There are signs of hope and inspiration in our present moment: A new generation is mobilizing around an emancipatory idea and attempting to find a way out of the interval. They are uncertain, experimenting, still finding a new way in a forbidding world. But they have that spark, that intuition, that something more is possible, that we have a responsibility to push beyond the boundaries of the weak and stultifying politics of the status quo. This is what real politics is. As the Congolese philosopher Ernest Wamba-dia-Wamba has eloquently put it, "Politics is a creative invention."

"The political attitude is not accommodating; the state of affairs in the world does not have to remain so because it is so," he writes. "People may live differently than they live." The "political attitude" is summed up in the simple yet impatient statement: "Let us do something about the situation!"

Update (June 20, 2020):  Bruce Levine considers "the lesser of two evils".

While the greater of two evils is a risk, so too is a lifetime of fear-based decision making. If we repeatedly deceive ourselves that we are compromising when we are in fact obliterating our integrity, there are consequences. We can become so broken that we are incapable of creating popular movements. We can become so broken that when those Brownshirts start marching, we will lack the strength to kick the shit out of them.

Update (August 23, 2020):  Andrew O'Hehir is "inclined to believe that [the departure of Agent Orange] will actually happen in January, with a less-than-apocalyptic level of histrionics". And yet

America's real problems will remain unsolved, because they created him more than the other way around.

O'Hehir has been saying all along that a "pause" in our decay may be the best we can hope for. He quotes William Goldman:

Nobody knows anything.

But we do know the popular vote doesn't necessarily matter. And despite twinges of regret among a few supporters, O'Hehir knows there is no new argument to be made against Fuckface. He recalls a point made by Masha Gessen.

The so-called institutions of democracy, which the political and media elite have constantly assured us would eventually defeat [Dear Leader], are powerless against those who do not believe in either institutions or democracy. Similarly, a presidential campaign fought on the supposedly clarifying and anti-ideological terrain of "character" and "decency" will have no effect on people who have concluded that character is bullshit and who do not want decency.