I agree with most all you've said in this piece. I do have an observation on the Jewish vote...I have acquaintances who are Jews and Zionists....and some that while proud of their Jewish heritage are appalled by the atrocities and war crimes of the current Israeli administration. The folks in the latter group were probably with the majority. The folks I know in the former group make no apologies for the genocide going on in the middle east. An interesting Bridge piece this week suggested that the time for conventions to select candidates is over, favoring primaries for all elected seats. I completely agree.
Most everyone I know who criticize the current Israeli atrocities have condemned the Hamas attack on Oct. 7. This gets less attention not only for the disproportionate response, but because the U.S. is funding Israel, not Hamas.
Several thoughts....one is the totally disproportionate response (somewhere around 100 to 1); second is the use of genocide to eliminate and displace an entire generation; third is the targeting of schools and hospitals and places of worship; and lastly the unabated theft of land. While I condemn the acts that Hammas has done, considering the above points, it's not surprising that they would react in this way. I'm angry that our US government has gotten sucked in to sending our tax dollars to fund this immoral effort.
Jack again hits the nail on the head! I started going to state Democratic Conventions when I was in junior high school in the 1960s - yes, I'm an old fart. I loved seeing old friends from past campaigns. Sometime, ten or so years ago, I decided I didn't belong. I didn't know many people. It was not the same. I stopped attending, with a touch of guilt. That all said, I do think the Dems will come together. The political enemy is Donald Trump, and his grip on government must be weakened (until 2028). Keep it up, Jack.
Fair enough column, with with the insinuated disdain for the progressives dominating this convention. But I think it's far fetched that people unhappy with this convention will vote for Dugan. But perhaps I am overestimating the reasoning of voters.
It's already quite possible that Dugan will be a spoiler in this election, and yes he could win, but it feels unlikely, as I think there'll be a large Democratic turnout for obvious reasons.
I'm with you on Mike Duggan. Not only is he the best candidate but he will shake the state loose from the grip of the failing or failed duopoly. I'm sending him some money.
Democrats seem to be uninterested in winning elections. Moderate points of view is the only way to get Independents to thwart the crazies. Meanwhile the crazies win and use a campaign of “hate the Dems”. It’s given us Trump. The AG nomination speaks volumes.
For whatever reason, 3 million people did not vote in the last election that voted in the previous election. Another ~ 700,000 voted for Kennedy the present head of HHS. 800,000 voted for Stein and 600,000 voted for Oliver. Then there is the 900,000 who voted for write-ins or others. With just the stay home 3 million, we got Trump as a comeback president from the obscurity he should have been condemned to.
When you do not vote or you vote for others because you "may" not like the candidate of party selection, you have made a decision for this president.
The larger question here is, "What was wrong with Kamala Harris?" She put Trump in his place. So badly, he did not want to debate her again. We got what we deserved . . . Trump. The numeric come from Dave Leips Atlas of Presidential Elections.
Just an explanation and not an attack. We could have won . . .
We just don't know. It makes sense that a moderate point of view will appeal to more people. Buy perhaps a clear progressive position with values and policies will draw out the huge number of those who sit out the election, as the wishy washy middle does not.
A major Democratic statewide nominee must be African American,except for the gubernatorial nominee.Seems like a "progressive" version of President 45/47's allusion to "black jobs."
I agree with most all you've said in this piece. I do have an observation on the Jewish vote...I have acquaintances who are Jews and Zionists....and some that while proud of their Jewish heritage are appalled by the atrocities and war crimes of the current Israeli administration. The folks in the latter group were probably with the majority. The folks I know in the former group make no apologies for the genocide going on in the middle east. An interesting Bridge piece this week suggested that the time for conventions to select candidates is over, favoring primaries for all elected seats. I completely agree.
Those offended by the atrocities have it correct. We, you, I do not get to murder civilians. I thought we learned that in My Lai in 68.
No problem with Hamas atrocities of course.
Most everyone I know who criticize the current Israeli atrocities have condemned the Hamas attack on Oct. 7. This gets less attention not only for the disproportionate response, but because the U.S. is funding Israel, not Hamas.
Several thoughts....one is the totally disproportionate response (somewhere around 100 to 1); second is the use of genocide to eliminate and displace an entire generation; third is the targeting of schools and hospitals and places of worship; and lastly the unabated theft of land. While I condemn the acts that Hammas has done, considering the above points, it's not surprising that they would react in this way. I'm angry that our US government has gotten sucked in to sending our tax dollars to fund this immoral effort.
Jack again hits the nail on the head! I started going to state Democratic Conventions when I was in junior high school in the 1960s - yes, I'm an old fart. I loved seeing old friends from past campaigns. Sometime, ten or so years ago, I decided I didn't belong. I didn't know many people. It was not the same. I stopped attending, with a touch of guilt. That all said, I do think the Dems will come together. The political enemy is Donald Trump, and his grip on government must be weakened (until 2028). Keep it up, Jack.
I appreciate that!!
Fair enough column, with with the insinuated disdain for the progressives dominating this convention. But I think it's far fetched that people unhappy with this convention will vote for Dugan. But perhaps I am overestimating the reasoning of voters.
It's already quite possible that Dugan will be a spoiler in this election, and yes he could win, but it feels unlikely, as I think there'll be a large Democratic turnout for obvious reasons.
Duggan. And I think he will win.
I'm with you on Mike Duggan. Not only is he the best candidate but he will shake the state loose from the grip of the failing or failed duopoly. I'm sending him some money.
Democrats seem to be uninterested in winning elections. Moderate points of view is the only way to get Independents to thwart the crazies. Meanwhile the crazies win and use a campaign of “hate the Dems”. It’s given us Trump. The AG nomination speaks volumes.
The voting numbers in 2024 tell the story.
For whatever reason, 3 million people did not vote in the last election that voted in the previous election. Another ~ 700,000 voted for Kennedy the present head of HHS. 800,000 voted for Stein and 600,000 voted for Oliver. Then there is the 900,000 who voted for write-ins or others. With just the stay home 3 million, we got Trump as a comeback president from the obscurity he should have been condemned to.
When you do not vote or you vote for others because you "may" not like the candidate of party selection, you have made a decision for this president.
The larger question here is, "What was wrong with Kamala Harris?" She put Trump in his place. So badly, he did not want to debate her again. We got what we deserved . . . Trump. The numeric come from Dave Leips Atlas of Presidential Elections.
Just an explanation and not an attack. We could have won . . .
We just don't know. It makes sense that a moderate point of view will appeal to more people. Buy perhaps a clear progressive position with values and policies will draw out the huge number of those who sit out the election, as the wishy washy middle does not.
A major Democratic statewide nominee must be African American,except for the gubernatorial nominee.Seems like a "progressive" version of President 45/47's allusion to "black jobs."